Experiments behind the veil: Structural influences on judgments of social justice

Political Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 519-547

  Mitchell, Gregory ^a   Tetlock, Philip E ^b   Newman, Daniel G ^c   Lerner, Jennifer S ^d  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Say I Can   (United States)

^d CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Efficiency; Frame of reference; Hypothetical societies paradigm; Impartial reasoning device; Meritocracy; Social justice; Workfare

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041530119     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0162-895X.00339     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.
2. Appelbaum, L. D. (2001). The influence of perceived deservingness on policy decisions regarding aid to the poor. Political Psychology, 22, 419-442.
3. Bar-Hillel, M., & Yaari, M. (1993). Judgments of distributive justice. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 55-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Baron, J. (1998). Judgment misguided: Intuition and error in public decision making. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Bénabou, R. (2000). Meritocracy, redistribution, and the size of the pie. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles, & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Meritocracy and economic inequality (pp. 317-339). Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Braybrooke, D. (1987). Meeting needs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Browning, E. K., & Johnson, W. R. (1984). The trade-off between equality and efficiency. Journal of Political Economy, 92, 175-203.
8. Christiansen, N. D., & Lavine, H. (1997). Need-efficiency trade-offs in the allocation of resources: Ideological and attributional differences in public aid decision making. Social Justice Research, 10, 289-310.
9. Cook, T. D., & Pearlman, B. (1981). The relationship of economic growth to inequality in the distribution of income. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 359-389). New York: Plenum.
10. Costantini, E., & Craik, K. H. (1980). Personality and politicians: California party leaders, 1960-1976. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 641-666.
11. Dahrendorf, R. (1988). The modern social conflict. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
12. Elster, J. (1995). The empirical study of justice. In D. Miller & M. Walzer (Eds.), Pluralism, justice, and equality (pp. 81-98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Fishkin, J. S. (1992). The dialogue of justice. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press.
15. Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A. (1992). Choosing justice: An experimental approach to ethical theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16. Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A. (1997). A role of structured observations in ethics. Social Justice Research, 10, 1-21.
17. Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A. (2000). How people reason about ethics. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason (pp. 85-107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Furnham, A. (1982). Why are the poor always with us? Explanations for poverty in Britain. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 311-322.
19. Furnham, A. (1985). The determinants of attitudes towards social security recipients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 19-27.
20. Heaven, P. C. L. (1990). Suggestions for reducing unemployment: A study of Protestant work ethic and economic locus of control beliefs. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 55-65.
21. Herrmann, R. K., Tetlock, P. E., & Diascro, M. N. (2001). How Americans think about trade: Reconciling conflicts among money, power, and principles. International Studies Quarterly, 45, 191-218.
22. Huddy, L., Jones, J. M., & Chard, R. E. (2001). Compassionate politics: Support for old-age programs among the non-elderly. Political Psychology, 22, 443-471.
23. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193-206.
24. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. (1981). Beliefs about stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 29-56.
25. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
26. Lane, I. M., & Messé, L. A. (1972). Distribution of sufficient, insufficient, and oversufficient rewards: A clarification of equity theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 228-233.
27. Lane, R. E. (2001). Self-reliance and empathy: The enemies of poverty - and of the poor. Political Psychology, 22, 473-492.
28. Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K., P. (1983). Fairness, preference, and fairness biases. In D. M. Messick & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Equity theory (pp. 61-94). New York: Praeger.
29. Miller, D. (1992). Distributive justice: What the people think. Ethics, 101, 555-593.
30. Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Ordóñez, L. D. (1993). Judgments of social justice: Compromises between equality and efficiency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 629-639.
32. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
33. Okun, A. M. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big trade-off. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
34. Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Rasinski, K. R. (1987). What's fair is fair-or is it? Public values and conflicting views about justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 201-211.
36. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
37. Roemer, J. (1995). Equality and responsibility. Boston Review, 20(2), 3-7.
38. Rohrbaugh, J., McClelland, G., & Quinn, R. (1980). Measuring the relative importance of utilitarian and egalitarian values: A study of individual differences about fair distribution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 34-49.
39. Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organization structure and fairness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 881-905.
40. Scott, J. T., Matland, R. E., Michelbach, P. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2001). Just deserts: An experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science. 45, 749-767.
41. Sen, A. (2000). Merit and justice. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles, & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Meritocracy and economic inequality (pp. 5-16). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Skitka, L. J. (1999). Ideological and attributional boundaries on public compassion: Reactions to individuals and communities affected by a natural disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 793-808.
43. Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 491-522.
44. Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Of ants and grasshoppers: The political psychology of allocating public assistance. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.). Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 205-233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Skocpol, T. (1988). The limits of the New Deal system and the roots of contemporary welfare dilemmas. In M. Weir, A. S. Orloff, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), The politics of social policy in the United States (pp. 293-312). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46. Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge. MA: Belknap.
47. Sniderman, P. M., Fletcher, J. F., Russell, P. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1996). The clash of rights. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48. Soltan, K. E. (1987). Empirical studies of distributive justice. Ethics, 92, 673-691.
49. Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 819-827.
50. Tetlock, P. E. (1994). Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? Political Psychology, 15, 509-529.
51. Tetlock, P. E. (1996). Revising the value pluralism model: Incorporating social content and context postulates. In C. Seligman & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (vol. 8, pp. 25-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (1993). Liberal and conservative approaches to justice: Conflicting psychopolitical portraits. In B. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 234-255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 117-125.
54. Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., vol. 2, pp. 595-629). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
55. Walster, H., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 700-725.
56. Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.