Perceptions Of Unfairness Research Articles

An exploration of the use of low-level behaviour management systems in secondary schools: Using student views, psychology and social justice to guide educational psychology practice

Aim:The aim of this paper is to consider the use of current low-level behaviour management systems in secondary schools and how educational psychologists can best work alongside these systems. It does this by combining a psychological discussion about low-level behaviour management systems with the findings from a mixed methods research project conducted with ten trainee educational psychologists (TEPs) who gathered the views of 155 secondary school students on the low-level behaviour management systems used in their schools.Rationale:Articles in the media have increasingly reported parents’ and professionals’ concerns with behaviour management that involves removal from lessons and periods of isolation. In November 2019, a motion was proposed to the Association of Educational Psychologists Annual General Meeting that educational psychologists (EPs) should be working with schools to reduce the number of exclusions and change the practice of punitive low-level behaviour management systems towards more relational based systems.Findings:The discussion proposed that low-level behaviour management systems do not sit comfortably with EPs’ understanding of behaviour change, social justice and ethical practice. The results of the group research project indicated that students perceive their peers to be more disruptive than themselves. Whilst they perceive unfairness and inconsistency in the application of whole school behaviour management systems they do not strongly disagree with their use.Limitations:The authors posit that current low-level behaviour management systems have a more serious impact on students with additional needs or those from vulnerable backgrounds, however a limitation of the study was the inability to differentiate between the views of students with additional needs to those without. We suggest that future research should seek to capture the perspectives of students with additional needs and/or those who have experienced exclusion as a result of the processes of low-level behaviour management systems.Conclusion:Despite students’ perception of unfairness and inconsistency in the application of whole school behaviour management systems, they do not strongly disagree with their use. EPs should work alongside school leaders to consider ways to protect vulnerable pupils from the negative impact through promoting more relational approaches.

사용자의 기술준비도가 기업의 셀프서비스기술 정책에 대한 공정성 인식에 미치는 영향 : 그림자 노동의 관점에서

Nowadays self-service technologies (SSTs) are growing popular giving advantages to firms, but some customers feel unfairness toward firms’ policy. From perspective of shadow work, customers could perceive that using SSTs is in line with doing extra tasks, that is transferred from service employees. In this respect, this study aimed to explore the factors which forms customers’ perception of shadow work (forced use and difficulty of use) while using kiosks, and whether it may influence perception of fairness. We also integrate technology readiness index, to examine whether customers’ shadow work perception is influenced by their technology readiness. Additionally, we tested the moderating effect of habit on perception of fairness, expecting that habit may mitigate the negative effect of shadow work perception toward fairness perception. The result showed that customers’ technology readiness partially influence the perception of shadow work and it affect perception of unfairness. It was also verified that habit mitigate the negative effect of forced use on unfairness perception, but no significant effect was found on relation between difficulty of use and unfairness perception.

Customer-Oriented Constructive Deviance as a Reaction to Organizational Injustice Toward Customers

To date, research on the deontic model and third-party reactions to injustice has focused primarily on individuals’ tendency to punish the transgressor. In this study, we seek to extend the extant research by arguing that punishment may not be the only deontic reaction and that third-party observers of injustice should engage in activities that help the victim. More specifically, we explore employee’s customer-oriented constructive deviance as a reaction to organizational injustice toward customers. We also investigate how this deviance influences customer satisfaction. In addition, we explore service climate, driven by servant leadership as a moderator on the relationship between employees’ perceptions of organizational unfairness and customer-oriented constructive deviance. The study collected three-level survey data from 95 hotel managers, 396 employees, and 1,848 customers. We find that servant leadership increases service climate, which in turn strengthens the relationship between organizational injustice toward customers and customer-oriented constructive deviance. The findings also reveal that customer-oriented constructive deviance increases perceived service quality, leading to customer satisfaction. Our study significantly contributes to the emerging theory concerning customer-oriented constructive deviance by explaining the antecedents, consequences, and moderators. The study also helps managers deal with customer-oriented constructive deviance in the workplace.

Subjectivity in fairness perceptions: How heuristics and self‐efficacy shape the fairness expectations and perceptions of organisational newcomers

AbstractThe very nature of perceived injustice cuts to the heart of employees' cognition, attitudes and behaviours in the workplace. Yet, researchers and practitioners are woefully uninformed about what drives the subjectivity of unfairness perceptions. Using an integration of fairness heuristic and uncertainty management theories as a theoretical foundation to drive our hypothesis development, we conducted a multi‐study investigation to examine individual‐level correlates of unfairness expectations and perceptions in the context of newcomer organisational entry. Across two studies, we found support for the positive association between prior unfairness experiences (i.e. global unfairness heuristic) and expectations of unfairness (i.e. anticipatory injustice) at work. As an extension, Study 2 examined and found support for the interactive effect of global unfairness heuristics and competency‐related beliefs (i.e. self‐efficacy) on the formation of anticipatory injustice. Furthermore, Study 2 documented both direct and indirect associations between employees' global unfairness heuristic, anticipatory injustice, perceived injustice, job satisfaction and counterproductive work (CWB) behaviours. Overall, our work sheds light on the importance of perceiver‐specific factors for better informing the complex, idiosyncratic nature of perceived work unfairness. We discuss theoretical contributions, future research directions and practical implications.

Compulsory yet Fair Acquisition of Land: Assessing Procedural Fairness of Compulsory Acquisition Process in India

ABSTRACT Coerciveness built in the process of compulsory acquisition (CA) induces a perception of unfairness among the affected landowners and may alleviate with fair compensation and due process. This research focuses on the latter and aims to identify issues of unfairness perceived by the affected landowners using six criteria of procedural fairness from the legal literature including ethicality, representativeness, bias-suppression, accuracy, correctability and consistency. While procedural unfairness is a concern in many geographies (see for Scotland), this research adopts a case-study approach given the geographical specificity of CA laws and examines Indian process for its relatively recent modification under the newly enacted CA act of 2013. The paper undertakes a qualitative content analysis of court case reports on the Bangalore–Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project and interview transcripts of forty-seven landowners whose land was acquired using Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act of 1966 (a precursor to the new act). This research argues that fixing following issues is crucial to improving the landowners’ perception of fairness: ethical behaviour by the acquirers; representativeness of the affected landowners; quality information throughout the process; accountability of acquirers; neutral review of objections; unbiased assessment of compensation; and inexpensive conflict resolutions.

Consumers—Especially Women—Avoid Buying From Firms With Higher Gender Pay Gaps

We document a unique driver of consumer behavior: the public disclosure of a firm’s gender pay gap. Four experiments provide causal evidence that when firms are revealed to have gender pay gaps, consumers are less willing to pay for their goods, a reaction driven by consumer perceptions of unfairness. Unlike reactions to CEO‐to‐worker wage gaps, this effect varies by consumers’ gender: Compared to men, women show larger decreases in purchase intentions toward firms with gender pay gaps. Social media data, from before and after the United Kingdom legally mandated many firms to disclose their gender pay gaps, further demonstrate that gender pay gaps correlate with negative consumer reactions; once again, women are more likely than men to express negative sentiments online in response to pay gap‐related topics. Although we show that firms consumers will punish firms with their wallets, we also observe boundary conditions: When decisions incur a sufficient cost to the self—such as when needing a ride‐share when rain is very likely—the negative effects of gender gap disclosure are attenuated.

Effect of group membership on unfairness perception under coexperience conditions

Effect of group membership on unfairness perception under coexperience conditions

Impact of Algorithmic Decision Making on Human Behavior: Evidence from Ultimatum Bargaining

Recent advances in machine learning have led to the widespread adoption of ML models for decision support systems. However, little is known about how the introduction of such systems affects the behavior of human stakeholders. This pertains both to the people using the system, as well as those who are affected by its decisions. To address this knowledge gap, we present a series of ultimatum bargaining game experiments comprising 1178 participants. We find that users are willing to use a black-box decision support system and thereby make better decisions. This translates into higher levels of cooperation and better market outcomes. However, because users under-weigh algorithmic advice, market outcomes remain far from optimal. Explanations increase the number of unique system inquiries, but users appear less willing to follow the system’s recommendation. People who negotiate with a user who has a decision support system, but cannot use one themselves, react to its introduction by demanding a better deal for themselves, thereby decreasing overall cooperation levels. This effect is largely driven by the percentage of participants who perceive the system’s availability as unfair. Interpretability mitigates perceptions of unfairness. Our findings highlight the potential for decision support systems to further human cooperation, but also the need for regulators to consider heterogeneous stakeholder reactions. In particular, higher levels of transparency might inadvertently hurt cooperation through changes in fairness perceptions.

Associations among Procedural Fairness, Tax Compliance, and Tax Re-audits

This study investigates the determinants of the likelihood of a tax re-audit in Korea. It adopts a researcher-administered questionnaire survey method for data collection. The survey questionnaire is randomly distributed to 1,120 individuals with tax-related knowledge and experience. Using a final sample of 342 responses, we conduct a cross-sectional regression analysis to test our hypotheses. The results show that the level of tax non-compliance significantly affects the likelihood of a tax re-audit. This finding suggests that the increase in re-audits in Korea is attributable to the tendency of the tax authority to conduct a re-audit to detect taxpayers' non-compliance behavior by excessively broadening the scope of re-audits. This study also finds that the level of tax non-compliance is influenced by the perception of procedural unfairness, measured by operational inconsistency and regulatory lack of clarity. Lastly, the results reveal that the level of tax non-compliance mediates the relationship between the perception of procedural unfairness and likelihood of a tax re-audit. This finding indicates that enhancing procedural fairness could fundamentally reduce unnecessary re-audits that infringe on the rights of taxpayers, as the likelihood of a tax re-audit is not solely determined by the level of tax non-compliance but also by perceived procedural fairness.

Broadening Our Understanding of ""Doing Justice"" in Organizations

Many of society’s pressing challenges — conflict, discrimination, well-being — can be linked to injustice within organizations. Effectively addressing workplace injustice requires scholars to broaden our understanding of what it means to “do justice” in organizations. In this symposium, we aim to “broaden our sight” (Academy of Management, 2020) by bringing together a diverse panel of leading scholars who are tackling critical questions related to the obstacles and challenges associated with fostering justice and fairness in the workplace. Using disparate methodologies (e.g., experiments, field studies, interviews) and theoretical frameworks (e.g., appraisal theory, fairness theory, goal prioritization, moral disengagement), our presenters provide insight into (a) the situational factors that can impact whether managers act justly, (b) who is likely to enact justice and the role of emotions in the process of enactment, (c) how managers make sense of having acted unjustly, (d) how perceptions of unfairness can stem from a mismatch between the amount of trust one desires and receives, and (e) the process by which managers are personally blamed and held accountable for unfair situations. The symposium will conclude with an interactive discussion that highlights key themes and directions for future research as well as practical insights into how managers and organizations might promote fairer workplaces by encouraging justice enactment among managers and effectively managing fairness for employees. Are Managers Strategic About Behaving Fairly? Subordinate Uncertainty and Manager Fairness Enactment Presenter: Midori Nishioka; U. of Waterloo Presenter: James W. Beck; U. of Waterloo Presenter: Ramona Bobocel; U. of Waterloo Understanding Interpersonal Justice Enactment by Integrating the ‘Who’ and the ‘Why’ Presenter: Annika Hillebrandt; Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson U. Presenter: Maria Francisca Saldanha; UCP - Católica Lisbon School of Business & Economics Presenter: Daniel Brady; Wilfrid Laurier U. Quo Vadis? Three Moral Journeys of Justice Enactment During Organizational Change Presenter: Julia Zwank; EBS Presenter: Marjo-RIitta Diehl; EBS International U. Presenter: Marion Fortin; U. of Toulouse I, Capitole Under, Over, or “Just Right”? The Fairness of (In)congruence Between Trust Wanted and Trust Received Presenter: Michael Baer; Arizona State U. Presenter: Emma Laier Frank; U. of Georgia Presenter: Fadel Khalil Matta; U. of Georgia Presenter: Margaret M. Luciano; Arizona State U. Presenter: Edward McClain Wellman; Arizona State U. Gendered Blame and its Implications for Managers in the Aftermath of Unfair Situations Presenter: Christianne Varty; Wilfrid Laurier U. Presenter: Laurie Barclay; Wilfrid Laurier U. Presenter: Daniel Brady; Wilfrid Laurier U.

When does coopetition affect price unfairness perception? The roles of market structure and innovation

PurposeThis study aims to examine the critical role of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream), market structure (concentrated/competitive) and innovation (low vs high degree of innovation) that can affect the way consumers perceive the resulting price (un)fairness of new offerings.Design/methodology/approachThree between-subjects experiments involving different participant populations and product categories were conducted to test the research hypotheses.FindingsThe valence of the effect of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) on price fairness is conditional on the market structure and the degree of innovation associated with the new product offering. Downstream (as opposed to upstream) coopetition is much more detrimental to perceptions of price fairness in a concentrated market than in a competitive and fragmented market. However, within a competitive market, downstream coopetition may lead to greater price fairness perception than upstream coopetition when the new product offering is highly innovative.Research limitations/implicationsThe current study uses lab experiments with fictitious scenarios and focuses on two moderating variables: market structure and innovation perceptions. Future research may use field experiments and explore additional moderating variables that may annihilate the negative effect of downstream coopetition on price fairness perception, especially in a concentrated market.Practical implicationsIn concentrated markets, firms should opt for upstream rather than downstream coopetition to limit the negative effect the announcement of coopetition has on price fairness evaluation. However, within a competitive market, when the new product offering resulting from coopetition is associated with a high perceived degree of innovation, firms should opt for downstream rather than upstream coopetition because of its positive impact on price fairness evaluation.Originality/valueTo the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that new product development from coopetition has important implications for the perception of price fairness, leading to positive or negative effects depending on market structure and the degree of innovation of the new product offering. It then explores the conditions under which types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) might backfire.

Is it unfair for the affluent to be able to purchase "better" healthcare? Existential standards and institutional norms in healthcare attitudes across 28 countries.

Existing research has found that individuals often perceive healthcare inequalities as unfair; yet, there is high variation in unfairness perceptions between countries. This raises the question of whether the institutional context of the healthcare system is associated with what people perceive as unfair. Using data from the ISSP study and OECD health expenditure data from 2011/13, we explore whether individual attitudes about the unfairness of healthcare inequality - the ability to purchase "better" healthcare for the affluent - vary systematically with a country's institutional environment: namely, with the prevalence of cost barriers to healthcare access, and with the degree and type of public healthcare financing. Three general findings emerge from the analysis: (1) Higher cost barriers correlate with lower levels of perceived unfairness in healthcare inequality, suggesting those exposed to greater levels of inequality tend to be more accepting of inequality. This finding is consistent with empirical justice theory and the expected relevance of an 'existential' standard of justice, stemming from individuals' proclivities to accept the status quo as just. (2) Further, greater public financing of healthcare correlates with higher perceived unfairness. Drawing on neo-institutionalist theory, this may suggest that greater public financing enshrines access to healthcare as a universal right, and hence provides an ideational framing that delegitimizes unequal opportunities for purchasing better healthcare. (3) Further, higher unfairness perceptions of lower income and educational groups are more strongly associated with greater public financing than those of their respective comparison groups. This may indicate that the normative right to healthcare is of particular importance to the disadvantaged, which could potentially explain the political quiescence on healthcare of lower income and educated persons in societies that lack universal health systems. In sum, this study contributes to the larger debate on the interrelatedness of healthcare institutions and public opinion, and specifically on perceptions of unfairness.

Re-Thinking Procedural Justice Theory Through Stop and Search: Shame, Anger, and Police Legitimacy

AbstractStop and search has been argued to have a damaging impact upon trust in police and compliance with the law. Procedural Justice Theory has sought to explain this relation through perceptions of (un)fairness leading to the production of (il)legitimacy and to dispositions to (dis)obey. The article proposes a theoretical framework to supplement an explanatory gap in this theory, namely why perceptions of unfairness might lead to anti-police dispositions or attitudes. Ethnographic research is employed to elucidate the relevance of affective, emotional, and cognitive mechanisms in relation to the practice of stop and search. The article argues that the normative representation of the suspect by police and the disempowerment or removal of the subject’s agency at the hands of police contain the capacity to reveal a disparity between self-understanding and social recognition: the central affective condition for shame. Transformations of this affective experience into anger defend self-esteem by positioning the police as at fault, questioning the claim to authority, and simultaneously constructing the expressive drive to mistrust and confront the goal-obstacle to self-esteem.

Trust Toward the Criminal Justice System Among Swedish Roma: A Mixed-Methodology Approach

Minority populations’ trust toward the criminal justice system is understudied in many parts of Europe, including Sweden. This article will contribute to this field by examining the trust in the criminal justice system among the Roma community in Sweden. The aim of the study was to (1) estimate the Roma community’s trust toward the criminal justice system, (2) examine what factors influence the community’s trust toward the criminal justice system, and (3) analyze whether trust toward the authorities influences the Roma community’s willingness to report victimization. The study used a mixed-methodology design in combining survey data ( n = 610) with in-depth interviews ( N = 30). The findings show that the respondents have a low level of trust in the criminal justice system authorities. According to the regression analysis, the strongest predictor of trust was shown to be explained by the respondent’s perception of procedural unfairness. Qualitative findings supported these results while also highlighting cultural effects and historical processes that explain the community’s lack of trust. Finally, trust in the authorities seems to be an important factor that influences crime reporting.

Automobility and Oil Vulnerability

Climate policies in the European Union require a substantial reduction in carbon emissions from road transport. However, in the last decades the system of automobility has expanded considerably, establishing a process of path dependence that is very difficult to reverse. Changes in current patterns of automobility may increase oil vulnerability of citizens dependent on the use of the car, aggravating forms of social inequity. Based on an analysis of how television news framed a period of oil price rises in a country highly dependent on car use, the article shows that oil vulnerability may resonate with socially shared sociocultural meanings such as lack of trust in political leaders, which may aggravate the social perception of unfairness and compromise public support for energy transitions toward sustainability.

Relational State Building in Areas of Limited Statehood: Experimental Evidence on the Attitudes of the Police

Under what conditions does state expansion into limited statehood areas improve perceptions of state authority? Although previous work emphasizes identity or institutional sources of state legitimacy, I argue that relationships between state agents and citizens drive positive attitude formation, because these relationships provide information and facilitate social bonds. Moreover, when state agents and citizens share demographic characteristics, perceptional effects may improve. Finally, citizens finding procedural interactions between state agents and citizens unfair may adopt negative views about the state. I test these three propositions by randomizing household visits by male or female police officers in rural Liberia. These visits facilitated relationship building, leading to improved perceptions of police; shared demographic characteristics between police and citizens did not strengthen this effect. Perceptions of unfairness in the randomization led to negative opinions about police. The results imply that relationship building between state agents and citizens is an important part of state building.

Why should I pay more? Testing the impact of contextual cues on perception of price unfairness for the price-disadvantaged segment in dual pricing

Abstract The practice of dual pricing is ubiquitous in the field of tourism. However, extant research has not focused on minimising the perception of price unfairness among the price-disadvantaged tourists. This study uses equity theory (Adams, 1965), categorisation theory, and the principle of dual entitlement to understand the impact of price as well as non-price related contextual cues on the perception of price unfairness among the price-disadvantaged (international) tourists. The results demonstrate that transaction similarity between the two (domestic and international) segments can be reduced by expressing international tourists’ entrance fees in international currencies, and by including a service element, which would decrease their perception of price unfairness. Furthermore, providing a legitimate rationale behind the increased entrance fee would further decrease their perception of price unfairness. Implementing these findings will help tourist sites in reducing the negative impact of the perception of price unfairness.

The Price of Power: How Firm’s Market Power Affects Perceived Fairness of Price Increases

How does market power affect consumer perceptions and purchase behavior? In the theoretically and pragmatically important context of price increases, we theorize that (i) consumer price fairness perceptions decline with market power when a price increase is due to costs; and (ii) this fairness difference arises due to greater perceptions of controllability and, in turn, exploitation by firms with higher market power. Consistent with our theorizing, we further argue that market power does not affect fairness (iii) when prices rise due to demand (which is perceived as equally exploitative and unfair regardless of firm power) or (iv) when price increases are clearly beyond the firm’s control (and perceived as equally fair for firms with high and low market power). We provide empirical support for these predictions in a series of behavioral experiments combined with an analysis of retail scanner data. Together, our findings shed light on how market power and pricing actions jointly drive consumer perceptions of unfairness, with implications for firms’ pricing strategies, competition in the retail marketplace, and the principle of dual entitlement as a community standard of fairness in pricing.

The Political Psychology of Inequality and Why It Matters for Populism

Integrating research from political science, psychology, and related fields, this article analyzes the complex web of relationships and pathways connecting economic inequality to populism. What emerges is an original theoretical framework for understanding populist support, which distinguishes between levels of analysis and considers how economic and cultural influences interact (rather than placing them at odds). It also emphasizes the important distinction between reality and perception and its role in understanding how citizens react differently to the same macrolevel trends and environmental threats. Careful analysis of the existing scholarship suggests that economic stratification exerts an indirect influence on populist support. Inequality likely shapes populist beliefs through macrolevel mediators such as economic dysfunction, rising political polarization, and a decline in the quality of government. Also, several potential individual-level influences mediate the relationship, including heightened sense of intergroup threat, political distrust, status anxiety, and perceptions of system unfairness. This article’s theoretical framework also explores how community environment and relevant personality characteristics like right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation may moderate important associations.

Disinformation, Digital Information Equality, and Electoral Integrity

Digital information attacks to a country’s electoral integrity have been recognized as a cybersecurity threat by several governments. Disinformation, defined as information that is intentionally false or deliberately misleading, is especially hard to regulate in the elections context, where the free flow of political discourse is an integral part of public confidence in the electoral process but must be balanced with the impact of false information that could undermine public confidence in the electoral process and undermine the ability of voters to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. Electoral disinformation campaigns intentionally deceive voters, thereby disrupting the notion of fair elections. Over-regulation of political speech, however, can imperil the political participation of the informed voter, who in turn engages and influences other voters. Policies for regulating electoral disinformation must therefore balance the tension between curbing speech and encouraging voters to engage in political participation through the free flow of information. Canadian elections law offers a possible solution for jurisdictions seeking to effectively regulate disinformation without unduly stifling free expression through the principle of “information equality,” which predates the recent discussions around online disinformation. The principle of information equality as originally conceptualized notably did not necessarily protect access to true or accurate information. Instead, information equality was supposed to ensure that voters have access to the same information at roughly the same time. In the modern context of rising threats of cyber-disinformation, where disinformation can be generated quickly and remotely and spread rapidly and to precise targets, we argue information equality should address the perception and reality of electoral unfairness arising from disinformation, where voters are subjected to poor quality information that is difficult to restrain and difficult to correct. Accordingly, we argue for an updated principle of digital information equality that would seek to protect the quality of information that voters receive at election time, and we apply this principle of digital information equality to address the harms of disinformation in the elections context. By re-invigorating the principle of information equality and adapting it from a theoretical concept to a regulatory device, this paper proposes a new method to regulate electoral disinformation while supporting an informed electorate, respecting democratic principles, and protecting electoral integrity. In so doing, the paper identifies three examples of harmful electoral disinformation that warrant increased regulation and concludes with a series of recommendations for other jurisdictions seeking to regulate disinformation in the electoral context.