Justice Motive Research Articles

A Comparison of HIV-Positive and HIV-Negatlve Crack Users Enrolled in a Residential Addiction Treatment Program

This study compared 96 HIV-Positive (HIV+) and 357 HIV-Negative (HIV-) crack users who were participating in the same drug-free, residential treatment program. Comparisons were made on sociodemographic, health, criminal justice, psychosocial, and recovery motivation variables. As predicted, the HIV(+) participants were more apt than the HIV(-) participants to be female and recently homeless. Also as predicted, HIV(+) participants had poorer subjective health, had more convictions for various criminal offenses, and were less apt to acquire employment during treatment when compared to the HIV(-) participants. Contrary to prediction, HIV(+) participants reported more social support, were not less committed to abstinence or 12-step groups, and were not less apt to complete the treatment program in comparison to the HIV(-) participants. These results suggest that HIV(+) crack users can be successfully treated in a rigorous treatment program. Future research should examine post-treatment outcomes among HIV-infected persons.

Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice.

Two psychological theories consider why people care about justice. The social-exchange-based resource model argues that people want to maximize the resources they obtain from social interactions, a goal that they believe is facilitated by following rules of distributive and procedural justice; the identity-based relational model suggests that people attempt to maintain high status within groups and use the justice of their experiences to evaluate their group status. Two studies on reactions to experiences with authorities ― legal and managerial ― examine the influence of these motives on (a) people's evaluations of the distributive and procedural justice of their experiences and (b) affective and behavioral reactions to those experiences

Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?

The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.

Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice.

Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice.

Citizenship and social justice

Discussions on the problems of the welfare state are increasingly framed in terms of citizenship rather than social justice. The popularity of the concept of citizenship raises the question of its implications for social justice theory and research. In this article it is argued that whereas the dominant approach in social justice is essentially individualistic, the concept of citizenship focuses rather on individuals as members of a societal community, from which both rights and obligations are derived. This focus on communal membership suggests three important topics for social justice theory and research: (i) the need to distinguish between a civic and a justice motive for human behavior, (ii) the need to specify the frame of reference respondents should use when they make their justice judgments, and (iii) the need to recognize the fact that justice judgments may result from both adhering to criteria of justice and considering the consequences of their application.

Empathy and justice motivation

Empathic distress is defined as an aversive feeling contingent on another's physical, emotional, or economic distress. The paper (1) summarizes a developmental scheme consisting of four stages of empathic distress; (2) suggests that causal attributions may partly transform empathic distress into sympathy, empathic anger, feeling of injustice, and guilt feeling; (3) notes the evidence that these empathic affects often serve to motivate moral behavior, and therefore that they qualify as moral motives; (4) points up limitations of these affects/motives and the need to embed them in justice principles; (5) discusses links between empathic affects/motives and principles of distributive justice/ (6) argues that Rawls' theory of justice, which excludes empathy, may nevertheless require it for the “difference principle” to influence behavior in real life; (7) hypothesizes a functional equivalence between empathy and the “veil of ignorance”; and (8) speculates that the conjunction of empathic affect and justice-principle thinking — in life and in abstract didactic contexts like Rawls' “original position” — may produce a principle having the motivational and stabilizing properties of a “hot cognition.”

Evidence for the role of the justice motive in status generalization processes

Status generalization refers to the capacity of status characteristics, such as race, gender, or occupation, to become the basis of social inequality even when such characteristics are not directly relevant to the immediate social interaction. For instance, individuals with positively valued status characteristics are more likely to assume positions of power and prestige than those of lower standing. To date, status generalization has been assumed to arise from stereotyped beliefs that associate positive standing on a status characteristic with positively valued personal attributes. Findings from two studies indicate that the capacity for status characteristics to produce power and prestige orders may also depend on people's need to believe in a just world. In the first study, participants were fortuitously granted a position of either superior or equal power and prestige to another person. Consistent with just world predictions, participants portrayed themselves more positively relative to the other on assessments of personal attributes when they occupied a superior position than when they occupied a position of equal power and prestige. Results from a second study showed that the tendency to link personal attributes with power and prestige standing was strongest for participants who scored high on the Just World Scale. Thus, just world beliefs appear to play a role in status generalization processes.

Review of The justice motive in social behavior.

Review of The justice motive in social behavior.

The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms1

The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms¹

Personal deserving versus justice for others: An exploration of the justice motive

Two expriments were conducted to test implications derived from Lerner's formulation of the “justice motive.” The experimental paradigm provided subjects with an opportunity to earn money in exchange for participation in future experimental sessions. Subjects who were offered “just” pay for their efforts volunteered significantly more of their time when their efforts would help a needy victim than when they would not. Moreover, when subjects were left with just pay, they offered more of their time when a portion of their pay was to go to a victim than when they received the entire wage themselves. When the pay subjects were to receive was less than deserved, however, the opportunity to help a victim did not affect their response level. The importance of these results for understanding helping behavior is considered, as is the compatibility of these results with other theoretical models.

Altruism and threat to a belief in a just world

Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of justice motivation and the presentation of the victim on the willingness of individuals to extend help to innocent victims. In the first experiment, individuals high and low in their belief in a just world were given an opportunity to offer their time and effort to help a needy victim. High believers in a just world offered less of their time when the victim was presented as one of many victims in a similar predicament than when the victim was presented as an isolated case. Low believers in a just world were not affected by the presentation of the victim, offering less help than Highs in the “isolate” condition and approximately equal help in the “group” condition. In the second experiment, subjects were given an opportunity to donate a portion of their experimental pay anonymously to needly families in the community. High believers in a just world donated more money when the need of the victims was presented as being temporary than when the suffering of the victims was presented as continuing. As was the case in Experiment 1, Lows were not affected by the experimental manipulation. The implications of these findings for an understanding of individuals' reactions to victims are discussed.

The Justice Motive in Social Behavior: Introduction

The articles in this issue enable one to examine the assumptions social observers have employed to understand the role which “justice” plays in human endeavors. Justice is seen by some as a by‐product of the individual's attempt to maximize his outcomes and an ideological support for the exercise of power. Others consider that justice, in its various forms, is an expression of the various functional requirements of society. Finally, there are those who find that the commitment to justice is a natural expression of the human potential. All the contributors must deal directly, or indirectly, with two compelling observations. Justice is one of the most sacred and pervasive themes in social behavior. And yet, it can take dramatically different forms even within the same society.

The justice motive: "Equity" and "parity" among children.

The justice motive: "Equity" and "parity" among children.