Distributive and Procedural Justice in Seven Nations

• NCJ Number: 185221
• Journal: Law and Human Behavior Volume: 24 Issue: 5 Dated: October 2000 Pages: 553-579
• Author(s): Ellen S. Cohn; Susan O. White; Joseph Sanders
• Date Published: October 2000
• Length: 27 pages
• Grant Number(s): SE 13237; SIR 11403
• Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on citizens’ opinions in Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States.

Abstract

The participants included random national samples of noninstitutionalized residents ages 18 and older, selected in 1995 and 1996. The participants completed face-to-face surveys in six countries and telephone surveys in the United States. The participants each reviewed two experimental vignettes. The actor in one vignette unsuccessfully appealed being fired from his job. The actor in the other vignette unsuccessfully went to an employment agency to seek a job. Participants rated the justness of the outcome and the fairness of the way the actor was treated. The vignettes manipulated the distributive justice factors of the actor’s need and being deserving and the procedural justice factors of impartiality and having a voice in the hearing. The research tested four hypotheses. The first was the distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings. The second was the procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved. The third was that participants in Central and Eastern Europe would make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information respondents. The fourth was that distributive justice factors and procedural justice factors interact. Both vignettes supported the distributive justice hypothesis. Results provided some support for the procedural justice hypothesis. Results were mixed for the interaction hypothesis and did not support the cultural hypothesis. Findings suggested that what constitutes either procedural or distributive justice depends on what is being judged and who is doing the judging. Tables, footnotes, and 82 references (Author abstract modified)