Germany has one of the highest levels of wealth concentration of any Western capitalist country. Research on the legitimization of economic inequality highlights that wealth elites tend to stress meritocratic arguments for legitimizing elite positions and wealth accumulation. However, whether this is also the case for wealthy business owners and how the media tends to portray those remains largely unknown. Drawing on a unique sample of 899 press articles from eight different media outlets between 2014 and 2018, we find a rather generous media debate. Based on descriptive evidence and a latent class analysis, we identify six latent frames illustrating how wealthy business owners are portrayed in the press. We show that the sources of wealth (inheritance, investment, entrepreneurship) are often used to highlight these owners’ deep economic relevance to the German economy, while the use of wealth is predominantly framed as a mean for profit-seeking. For wealthy business owners, moral evaluation of personal conduct is less present in the media and, when it is present, is rarely negative. Our study is the first analysis of press coverage of the wealthiest German business owners indicating a legitimizing media debate of high wealth concentration in an advanced capitalist society.
The belief in a just world (BJW) is the belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. The theory and research findings suggest that believing the world is fair to “me” (personal BJW or PBJW) is associated with positive psychological functioning, whereas believing that the world is fair to people in general (general BJW or GBJW) may not. Against a backdrop of mixed findings in samples recruited in Asian countries, we conducted two studies in Thailand (N = 177 and N = 175) and one in the UK (N = 345). Study 1 examined the relationships between PBJW, GBJW, life satisfaction, and depression in Thailand; Study 2 also included Karma and was conducted in Thailand and the UK. In both studies, PBJW uniquely predicted well-being. When controlling for BJW, belief in Karma positively predicted life satisfaction and depression only in the UK sample. In addition, Karma was uniquely predicted by GBJW but more strongly so in Thailand. Furthermore, within both samples, individuals endorsed PBJW more strongly than GBJW; comparing across samples, PBJW was more strongly endorsed in the UK than Thailand, whereas GBJW was more strongly endorsed in Thailand than the UK. However, sample nationality did not moderate associations between BJW, Karma and well-being. Results support the cultural generality of just world theory and the psychological priority of PBJW and indicate that the cultural concept of Karma does not explain relationships between just-world beliefs and well-being.
More than four decades have passed since the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted. Now is an opportune time to consider whether the interventions seeking to realise CEDAW’s aspirations have brought us closer to achieving gender equality. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise evidence for the effectiveness of social justice, cognitive, or behaviour-change interventions that sought to reduce gender inequality, gender bias, or discrimination against women or girls. Interventions could be implemented in any context, with any mode of delivery and duration, if they measured gender equity or discrimination outcomes, and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Papers on violence against women and sexuality were not eligible. Seventy-eight papers reporting qualitative (n = 36), quantitative (n = 23), and multi-methods (n = 19) research projects met the eligibility criteria after screening 7,832 citations identified from psycINFO, ProQuest, Scopus searches, reference lists and expert recommendations. Findings were synthesised narratively. Improved gender inclusion was the most frequently reported change (n = 39), particularly for education and media interventions. Fifty percent of interventions measuring social change in gender equality did not achieve beneficial effects. Most gender mainstreaming interventions had only partial beneficial effects on outcomes, calling into question their efficacy in practice. Twenty-eight interventions used education and awareness-raising strategies, which also predominantly had only partial beneficial effects. Overall research quality was low to moderate, and the key findings created doubt that interventions to date have achieved meaningful change. Interventions may not have achieved macrolevel change because they did not explicitly address meso and micro change. We conclude with a summary of the evidence for key determinants of the promotion of gender equality, including a call to address men’s emotional responses (micro) in the process of achieving gender equality (micro/meso/macrolevels).
The current paper aims to provide insight into judges’ perceptions of how fairly they treat litigants and how important case outcomes are to litigants, and whether these perceptions relate to litigants' perceptions of procedural justice and outcome importance. Respondents were litigants involved in bankruptcy, landlord-tenant, and administrative law cases and judges handling these cases at the district court of the Mid-Netherlands. Both litigants and judges indicated outcome importance and procedural justice. Litigants also indicated their trust in judges. Multilevel analyses using hierarchical regression showed a positive association between judicial and litigant perceptions of outcome importance and no significant association between judges' and litigants’ perceptions of procedural justice. This indicates that whereas judges and litigants largely agreed on how important case outcomes were, their views about how fairly judges handled cases diverged. These insights enhance our understanding of linkages and discrepancies between judges' and litigants' views on important aspects of the legal system.
The treatment of student misbehavior is both a major challenge for teachers and a potential source of students’ perceptions of injustice in school. By implication, it is vital to understand teachers’ treatment of student misbehavior vis-à-vis students’ perceptions. One key dimension of punishment behavior reflects the underlying motives and goals of the punishment. In the present research, we investigated the perspectives of both teachers and students concerning the purposes of punishment. Specifically, we were interested in the extent to which teachers and students show preferences for either retribution (i.e., evening out the harm caused), special prevention (i.e., preventing recidivism of the offender), or general prevention (i.e., preventing imitation of others) as punishment goals. Therefore, teachers (N = 260) and school students around the age of 10 (N = 238) were provided with a scenario depicting a specific student misbehavior. Participants were asked to indicate their endorsement of the three goals as well as to evaluate different punishment practices that were perceived (in pretests) to primarily achieve one specific goal but not the other two. Results show that teachers largely prefer general prevention, whereas students rather prefer special prevention and retribution. This discrepancy was particularly large in participants’ evaluation of specific punishment practices, whereas differences between teachers’ and students’ direct endorsement of punishment goals were relatively small. Overall, the present research may contribute to the development of classroom intervention strategies that reduce conflicts in student–teacher-interactions.
Scholars warn that neoliberalism erodes investment in the well-being of others by prizing the self-interested individual. To empirically investigate this claim, we surveyed 307 white, cisgender, heterosexual adult women across the US. First, we conducted a latent profile analysis using 6 indicators and identified 3 distinct sociopolitical profiles. In addition to typical Traditional and Progressive belief profiles, we observed one reflecting neoliberal ideology. Politically, women in the Neoliberal group held a centrist political orientation and relatively high neoliberal beliefs. Regarding social equality, they exhibited middling support for LGBTQ people and comparatively low gender equality beliefs. On interpersonal attitudes, they reported the lowest empathy as well as perspective-taking. Second, we examined the profiles’ associations with dedication to the welfare of others. Neoliberal-grouped women endorsed taking relatively low sociopolitical actions and were the least likely to donate money to marginalized women, while the most likely to keep it all for themselves. Although they held liberal attitudes toward their own sexual behavior, they imposed the highest sexual double standards on others and most strongly endorsed the use of others for one’s own sexual pleasure. Our findings reflect concerns that neoliberal ideology marks a departure from consideration of—and commitment to—others in both sociopolitical and personal domains. We discuss implications for social justice and welfare.
Inheritance represents a conflict between the individual and society. On one hand, the intergenerational transmission of resources favors the reproduction of privilege. On the other hand, contemporary individualization processes prioritize individual achievement. This paper addresses this conflict through a sociological approach by analyzing perceptions of inheritance taxation based on 32 in-depth interviews with members of the economic elite in Chile. Findings show that the principle of individual freedom in decisions regarding resource use prevails over the redistributive function that controls inheritance and favors personal attainment. In addition, a negative view of inheritance prevails, which is sustained by three major repertoires of evaluation emphasizing its inefficiency, ineffectiveness, economic inconvenience, and lack of foundation, as its purpose or utility is unknown. This last argument is surprising because it does not reject this tax for its design or application; rather, it confronts some crucial ideas with which it is usually linked, namely opportunity levelling at the beginning of a new generation and redistribution of privilege.
After decades of preparation, the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel has reached the construction stage in Finland, and the neighboring Sweden is likely to soon follow in the footsteps. These Nordic countries rely on a similar technical concept based on passive safety, advocated as a means of minimizing the burden to future generations. The scholarly literature on the ethics of nuclear waste management has thus far paid little attention to the views of the broader publics on the associated ethical challenges. This article helps to fill the gap through a longitudinal and comparative analysis of ethical discussion of the final disposal of SNF in news articles and letters to the editor in four leading Finnish and Swedish daily newspapers in 2008–2015. The study period included major milestones in the licensing processes of the respective two repository projects. The article examines the attention paid to intra- and intergenerational distributive and procedural justice, the changes in the ethical agenda over time, and the societal actor groups that receive attention in the media. The analysis reveals two distinct ethical media agendas: (1) the news article agenda that is dominated by framings of the main players (industry, politicians, authorities, and experts) and largely excludes future generations from the scope of justice, and (2) the agenda represented by the letters to the editor, which focuses on intergenerational justice concerns. Particularly, in the Finnish letters to the editor the value of the lives of distant future generations was discounted implicitly.
Intergroup conflicts can be triggered and perpetuated by collective perceptions of injustice. In two experiments, we applied the qualifying of subjective justice views, a justice-focused intervention initially introduced to resolve interpersonal conflicts, and evaluated whether it can mitigate intergroup conflicts. This intervention included explicating opposing justice perceptions, explaining the dilemma structure of justice conflicts, and emphasizing that each conflict party applies different justice standards in different situations. In a realistic conflict setting, among advantaged group members, the intervention enhanced the willingness to pay monetary concessions to the out-group. This effect was mediated through an enhanced understanding of the justice dilemma (Study 2) and legitimacy judgments of the out-group’s justice claim (Studies 1 and 2). Furthermore, effects of the justice-focused intervention were compared to those of empathy induction as a benchmark to evaluate the effectiveness. The comparison provided additional evidence for the effectiveness of the justice-focused intervention to mitigate intergroup conflicts.
The demographic shift experienced by developed countries inevitably results in a change in intergenerational relations. However, despite some attempts to evaluate intergenerational balance in quantitative terms, there is still a significant literature gap in this respect. This paper aims to propose a conceptual and empirical framework to measure intergenerational balance in a cross-country perspective which can serve for the comparative assessment of the outcomes of various policies. It addresses the research question in which countries selected generations are privileged over others in socio-economic terms. Our empirical study includes the investigation of the (relative) situation of different generations as well as comparisons of gender differences in terms of studied welfare state performance across generations to examine whether gender equality in some generations is more promoted than in others. As a criterion, we employ multivariate statistical analysis methods to group 25 European countries into clusters using the intergenerational balance in terms of poverty, income, housing, labour market, education and health. We distinguish four patterns in this respect: ‘Supporting young’, ‘Supporting adult’, ‘Discriminating against elderly’ and ‘Supporting elderly’. Our findings reveal that shifting the perspective from inputs to outcomes and including gender perspective gives a somewhat different picture of Europe in terms of intergenerational balance.
This study investigated whether people’s personal belief in a just world (BJW) is linked to their willingness to physically distance themselves from others during the COVID-19 pandemic. Past research found personal BJW to be positively related to prosocial behavior, justice striving, and lower risk perceptions. If social distancing reflects a concern for others, high personal BJW should predict increased interest in social distancing. If social distancing reflects a concern for one’s personal risk, high personal BJW should predict decreased interest in social distancing. Results of a pre-registered internet-based study from Germany (N = 361) indicated that the higher people’s personal BJW, the more they generally practiced social distancing. This association still occurred when controlling for empathy, another significant predictor of social distancing. There were no mediation effects of empathy and risk perception. The findings extend knowledge on the correlates of social distancing in the COVID-19 pandemic which could be used to increase compliance among citizens.
Despite the relevance and importance of distribution of rewards for group performance, especially groups with active faultlines, existing literature exploring these relationships is scarce. This study investigates the combined effects of gender faultlines and three particular conditions used for distribution of rewards on intragroup power struggles and group performance. The study hypothesizes that the relationship between gender faultlines and group performance is mediated by intragroup power struggles. It further posits that the distribution of rewards moderates the relationships between gender faultlines and intragroup power struggles, as well as gender faultlines and performance. The hypothesized relationships received empirical support in this experimental study using data from 396 participants nested in 99 groups. Specifically, we found that the positive effect of gender faultlines on intragroup power struggles was significant under inequity and equity conditions, but non-significant under equality condition. Further, the negative relationship between gender faultlines and performance was strengthened in the presence of inequity and equity conditions. Inequity condition resulted in the highest level of power struggles and lowest level of perceived and objective performances. Equity condition led to medium levels of power struggles and perceived performance but the highest level of objective performance. With equality condition, what ensued was the lowest level of power struggles, highest level of perceived performance, and medium level of objective performance. Managerial implications along with areas for future research are discussed.
In most contemporary societies, people underestimate the extent of economic inequality, resulting in lower support for taxation and redistribution than might be expressed by better informed citizens. We still know little, however, about how understandings of inequality arise, and therefore about where perceptions and misperceptions of it might come from. This methodological article takes one step toward filling this gap by developing a research design—a blueprint—to study how people’s understandings of wealth and income inequality develop through social interaction. Our approach combines insights from recent scholarship highlighting the socially situated character of inequality beliefs with those of survey experimental work testing how information about inequality changes people’s understandings of it. Specifically, we propose to use deliberative focus groups to approximate the interactional contexts in which individuals process information and form beliefs in social life. Leveraging an experimental methodology, our design then varies the social makeup of deliberative groups, as well as the information about inequality we share with participants, to explore how different types of social environments and information shape people’s understandings of economic inequality. This should let us test, in particular, whether the low socioeconomic diversity of people’s discussion and interaction networks relates to their tendency to underestimate inequality, and whether beliefs about opportunity explain people’s lack of appetite for redistributive policies. In this exploratory article we motivate our methodological apparatus and describe its key features, before reflecting on the findings from a proof-of-concept study conducted in London in the fall of 2019.
We introduce this special issue on “Social Justice: Lessons Learned and Needed Research.” The issue honors Early Career Award winners chosen by the International Society for Justice Research. The resulting articles represent notable contributions to the domain of research and theory on justice.
Conspiracy theories are widespread and have a profound impact on society. The present contribution proposes that conspiracy theories are explanatory narratives that necessarily contain justice judgments, as they include attributions of blame and accusations of unethical or criminal conduct. Conspiratorial narratives also are mental simulations, however, and may elicit genuine feelings of injustice also without evidence of actual malpractice. Indeed, conspiracy theories sometimes describe unfair events that are unlikely to have occurred, unethical authorities that might not actually exist, and so on. Here I propose two complementary processes that stimulate belief in evidence-free conspiracy theories: (1) Existential threats instigate biased mental processing and motivated reasoning, that jointly promote an alternative perception of reality; and (2) group allegiances shape how people perceive, interpret, and remember facts to highlight the immoral qualities of competing outgroups. Due to these processes, conspiracy theories elicit a set of distinct reactions such as poor health choices and rejection of science. Moreover, evidence-free conspiracy theories require interventions beyond traditional approaches to install justice principles, such as debunking falsehoods and reducing polarized intergroup distinctions. I conclude that the scientific study of conspiracy theories is part of, and has a unique place in, social justice research.
There is growing body of research investigating endorsement of restorative justice as a response to interpersonal transgressions, but a limited understanding of how endorsement varies across different individuals—for whom is restorative justice seen as an appropriate response? The current research seeks to address this limitation by identifying natural heterogeneity in endorsement of restorative justice. We employ a policy-capturing within-subject design to examine restorative justice endorsement following workplace mistreatment by a supervisor at different levels of severity. Latent growth curve analyses indicated support for restorative justice increased with more unfair treatment, but following a concave, curvilinear slope. Latent class analysis suggested heterogeneity in endorsement patterns. Class 1 (66%) comprised individuals with a low initial level of restorative endorsement and a curvilinear growth trajectory as offense severity increased, while Class 2 (33%) comprised individuals with a medium initial level and a linear growth trajectory. We also examined victim-focused justice sensitivity as a predictor of class membership; but in line with past research, we did not find a significant relationship between victim sensitivity and restorative justice endorsement. These findings identify previously unrecognized heterogeneity in patterns of restorative justice endorsement, pointing to differences in the lay understanding of the when and where restorative processes should be applied. More broadly, this research illustrates how we can utilize person-centered approaches to shed new light on established justice research and theory.
Autonomous algorithms are increasingly being used by organizations to reach ever increasing heights of organizational efficiency. The emerging business model of today therefore appears to be one where autonomous algorithms are gradually expanding their occupation into becoming a leading decision-maker, and humans by default become increasingly more subordinate to such decisions. We address the question of whether this business perspective is consistent with the sort of collaboration employees want to have with algorithms at work. We explored this question by investigating in what way humans preferred to collaborate with algorithms when making decisions. Using two experimental studies (Study 1, n = 237; Study 2, n = 684), we show that humans consider the collaboration with autonomous algorithms as unfair when the algorithm leads decision-making and will even incur high financial costs in order to avoid this. Our results also show that humans do not want to exclude algorithms entirely but seem to prefer a 60–40% human–algorithm partnership. These findings contrast the position taken by today’s emerging business model on the issue of automated organizational decision-making. Our findings also provide support for the existence of an implicit theory—held by both present and future employees—that humans should lead and algorithms follow.
Individuals differ systematically in how much they are concerned with matters of justice or injustice. So far, in various domains of life, such as romantic relationships, work, and school contexts, dispositional justice sensitivity has been found to be a powerful predictor of individual-level processing and interpersonal behaviors. Yet, matters of justice and injustice often materialize at the group level, especially when conflicts about status, rights, and resources occur between groups. Here, we propose a theoretical framework to understand how different facets of justice sensitivity (i.e., victim, beneficiary/perpetrator, and observer sensitivities) are relevant for group-level processes in intergroup contexts. Integrating research on justice sensitivity and intergroup conflict, we develop several propositions regarding how and under which conditions justice sensitivity influences intergroup experiences, attitudes, and behaviors. We selectively review the existing empirical evidence that can speak to the validity of these propositions, and outline future research that can test our propositions.