Psyc3004 - Advanced Social Psychology - P2: Justice

Question 1

Do animals have a ‘concept’ of justice?

Answer 1

They seem to, in experiments done with primates the primates seemed to have an idea of what was ‘fair’ (e.g., getting some of the reward for shared effort and getting the same as others for the same task) and would get frustrated if a situation was unfair. HOWEVER, it is possible that the animals were merely expressive frustration from unsatisfied self-goals (though unlikely>.>)

Question 2

Describe the “ultimatum game” experiment

Answer 2

Certain amount of money available; person A and B can have it/share it.

1. Person A has to suggest how to divide the money
2. Person B has to decide whether to accept the division or not
3. IF (a) Person B accepts the other, then the money will be divided accordingly; IF (b) Person B rejects the offer, neither of them will get any money.

Question 3

What is the most common outcome of “the ultimatum game”?

Answer 3

Person A often offers a 50/50 split.

Person B usually rejects unequal offers

Question 4

When Person B rejects unequal offers (i.e., they would get less $ than person A) in the ultimatum game - what are some reasons why this could be considered unusual?

Why might Person B be rejecting the unequal offer?

Answer 4

It is unusual because Person B effectively gives up something (some profit) in exchange for NO profit whatsoever - this would seem to go against ECONOMIC THEORY (i.e. personal gain).

Person B is rejecting the offer on moral grounds, because it is perceived as unfair (they are indicating that it is unfair, person A also gets no money!) - an unequal split goes against what Person B morally expects - Justice can be at TENSION with self-interest.

Question 5

Define “entitlement” and “deservedness”, they are slightly different concepts, but they are underlined by a similar idea!

Answer 5

The perception that something is due to someone; that someone ought to recevie a certain outcome or treatment.

Deservedness = “Earnt” by what you have done; Entitlement = “Owing to you” because of who you are.

Question 6

Outline the Equity Theory of justice

Answer 6

• Based on “social-exchange theory” = the idea that human interaction is the constant exchange of material or social goods.
• People are motivated to maintain profitable exchanges that last over time (i.e., cannot ‘take’ all the time) - long-term self-interest
• Principles of justice emerge in order to maintain social relationships with others and to continue profitable exchange.
• Main principle is the “principle of equity” i.e., inputs/outcomes for self = income/outputs for others.

Question 7

What is the equity principle of justice?

Answer 7

Input/outcome for self SHOULD EQUAL inputs/outcomes for other

An individual will consider that he is treated fairly if he perceives the ratio of his inputs to his outcomes to be equivalent to those around him. Thus, all else being equal, it would be acceptable for a more senior colleague to receive higher compensation, since the value of his experience (and input) is higher.

Question 8

What are the three ‘domains’ of justice?

Answer 8

• Distributive: what share of common resources you should receive.
• Procedural: Fair process, e.g., given a voice, somewhat implicit.
• Retributive: processes that restore justice.

Question 9

From experiments and in accordance with equity theory, how do people react to inequality?

Answer 9

• Behavioural changed e.g., slacking off when outcome is less than one feels they deserve, or working harder when one is getting overpaid
• Psychological change - redefining, rethinking of inputs/outcomes; changing comparison other.

Question 10

According to equity theory, how are entitlements determined?

Answer 10

• Comparison to others
• Outcomes considered relevant - depends on what you “focus” on e.g., money, time-off, free services, thankyou notes etc
• Inputs considered relevant - depends on what you “focus” on e.g., how diligent you are, howhelpful you have been, how flexible you are.

Question 11

What implications does “equity theory” have for the relationship between justice and self-interest?

Answer 11

JUSTICE IS AN EPIPHENOMENON OF SELF-INTEREST

• All exchange is MOTIVATED BY SELF-INTEREST - the theory posits that equity notions emerge to curtail short-term self-interest for the sake of maintaning productive exchange relationships, i.e., long-term self-interest.
• The theory also suggests that equity (i.e., the relevance and/or values of inputs) is selfishly intepreted, again in the service of self-interest.

Question 12

What are the problems with Equity theory?

Answer 12

Uses a SINGLE principle of justice - the equity principle - this is parsimonious, but too narrow.

Question 13

Outline the Multiprinciple Approaches to equity

Answer 13

Assumption that several distinct justice principles exist and their appropriateness depends on the social construction of the situation. (i.e., a taxonomical approach - theories about what principle applies in what situation)

Question 14

What are taxonomical approaches (in multiprinciple approaches to justice)

Answer 14

Theories about what justice principle (e.g., equity, equality, need) applies in what situation.

Question 15

What justice principles does Deutsch’s (1975) propose and for which situations are they appropriate?

Answer 15

Deutsch proposed that the appropriate principle depends on the value orientation of the group:

• Equity principle - Economical orientation (productivity)
• Equality principle - Solidarity orientation (relationships)
• Need principle - Care orientation

Question 16

What is Deutsh’s “Crude law of human relations”?

Answer 16

Outlines a circular relationship between: Social relationship <—> Typical interaction

OR, a combination of normative (what is normal) and instrumental reasons:

• Definition of situation requires a certain principle BUT ALSO…
• Application of a certain principle defines the situation

Question 17

What are the implications of multiprinciple approaches to justice?

Answer 17

Relative to equity theories, multiprinciple approaches are less individualistic and have a more social conception of justice.

They suggest:

• Justice exists and has normative power DISTINCT from concerns about self-interest
• Their normativeness/relevance depends on the situation
• The understanding of social justice can thus be SHARED when the social construction of the situation is shared.

Question 18

Why did people intepret “budget change” as:

1. Unfortunate, after they had recalled 3 good breaks (i.e., luck)
2. Fortunate, after they had recalled 3 bad breaks (i.e., luck)

Answer 18

1. Assumes that bad and good luck are balanced and after being primed to having had ‘good luck’ they expect something bad to occur
2. Assumes that bad and good luck are balanced and after being primed to having had ‘bad luck’ they expect something good to occur

Question 19

Why did people intepret “budget change” as:

Fortunate, after they had recalled 3 good deeds (i.e., luck)
Unfortunate, after they had recalled 3 bad deeds (i.e., luck)

Answer 19

Belief in a just world

1. They expected a positive output due to their positive input - despite the two being unrelated
2. They expected a negative output due to their negative input - despite the two being unrelated

Question 20

What does the “budget-change” experiment (i.e. positive/negatie view of budget changes depending on priming of good/bad luck versus. good/bad deeds) suggest about people’s beliefs about justice?

Answer 20

People believe in a just world.

People rationalise or construe events so that their belief in a just world is maintained.

Question 21

Outline Lerner & Simmons classic study on rationalising/construe due to belief in a just world

Answer 21

Ps observe a videotape of a target receiving electric shocks for wrong answers (under the guise that it is part of a learning experiment) i.e., they see a person experiencing undeserved suffering due to having signed up for the wrong experiment (i.e., a ‘bad-break’) after the (following) experimental condition - participants evaluate the target as positive/negative

The study had a number of experimental conditions (which I do not have to know precisely!)

1. Reward: the next session could be either positive reinforcement, neutral or negative reinforcement and the Ps decided this via a ballot - Ps chose positive reinforcement
2. Reward Decision - the next session could be either positive reinforcement, neutral or negative reinforcement and the Ps decided this via a ballot - but are not told of the result
3. Past event - Ps are told Videotape was from an earlier session and the target is fine now.
4. End-Point - Ps are told experiment is now over, the target won’t receive anymore shocks
5. Mid-Point - Ps are told that the target has to go through another neg. reinforcement condition
6. Martyr - Ps are told that the target decided to go through wth the experiemnt because other people (including the Ps) depended on it.

Question 22

In each of the following experimental conditions from Lerner & Simmon’s study on belief in a just world - how did the Ps rate the Target and why?

1. Reward: the next session could be either positive reinforcement, neutral or negative reinforcement and the Ps decided this via a ballot - Ps chose positive reinforcement
2. Reward Decision - the next session could be either positive reinforcement, neutral or negative reinforcement and the Ps decided this via a ballot - but are not told of the result
3. Past event - Ps are told Videotape was from an earlier session and the target is fine now.
4. End-Point - Ps are told experiment is now over, the target won’t receive anymore shocks
5. Mid-Point - Ps are told that the target has to go through another neg. reinforcement condition
6. Martyr - Ps are told that the target decided to go through wth the experiemnt because other people (including the Ps) depended on it.

Answer 22

Ratings where between -5 and -34, with -34 being more negative.

1. Reward - rated the target the most positive and the least negative (-5) - because the injustice was reduced
2. Reward decision - rated the target -25 - because the injustice had not been rectified
3. Past Event - rated the target at -11 - because the injustice was perceived as less serious
4. End point - rated the target at -12 - because the injustice is now over
5. Mid-point - rated the target very negatively at -25 - because there was high injustice with no explanation
6. Martyr - rated the target as the most negative at -34 - because: high injustice, event the target volunteered - they must have deserved it.

Question 23

Explain the results of Lerner & Simmon’s study on belief in a just world - how did the Ps rate the Target and why?

Answer 23

When there is no way to explain the injustive (electric shock) or see it as balanced then the target is evaluated more negatively - i.e., they must have deserved it. ….this is the reason for victim-derogation and victim-blaming.

This rationalisation enables people to maintain their belief in a just world.

“Normal people will reject, or at least devalue an innocent victim, if they are not able to intervene effectivel to correct the injustice” (Lerner, 1980 p.50)

Question 24

What is the belief in a just world? what is the name given to the motive to maintain belief in a justive world? and how do people maintain it?

Answer 24

People generally need to believe that the world is a just place where people get what they deserve. This derives from their need for control and sense of appropriateness.

The “justice motive”

People maintain their belief in a just-world through:

• Actions (behaviour) - prevention and restitution
• Reintepretation (psychology) - Blaming the victim, derogating the victim, reintepreting outcomes
• Other - denial/withdrawal, belief in ‘ultimate’ justice, weak belief in a just world or a belief that some ‘worlds’ are just and others are not.

Question 25

What conditions might limit the tendancy for victim derogation (in maintaining a belief of a just world) ? (according to Lerner and Miller, 1978)

Answer 25

Victim derogation might no occur when…

• Anticipation of being in the same situation as victim, induced empathy
• Rules and procedures are used that are considered normative and widely accepted e.g., when Ps are given a choice between their-own or anothers suggering, and their choice means suffering for the other, there is no derogation - PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFIED SELF INTEREST.

Question 26

What is the Principle of justified self-interest?

Answer 26

When Ps are given a choice between their-own or anothers suggering/loss, and their choice means suffering/loss for the other, there is no derogation of the victim - PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFIED SELF INTEREST.

Question 27

How did Hafer (2000, study 2) use a modified stroop task to demonstrate that threats to BJW account for changes in peoples intepretation of events etc

Answer 27

First Ps are given a news story about a severe assault - with the offender either caught (no threat to BJW) or escaped (Threat to BJW). Then they are given a stroop test using coloured justice and non-justice related words.

Results:

• No retribution (escaped) - 792.15ms reaction to justice words, 717.75ms reaction to neutral words
• Retribution (caught) - 684.23ms reaction to justice words, 686.55 reaction to neutral words.

i.e., non-retribution condition responded slower to justice words (compared to neutral words) than the retribution condition.

Question 28

Outline Lerner’s “personal contract” theory of why people need to believe in a just world?

What evidence is there to support this?

Answer 28

Lerner argues that BJW develops when children learn to delay gratification (during development). Because in order to justify delaying gratification one must believe that the gratification will occur late - that the world is orderly and people get what they deserve. In this way, BJW is considered to be part of human’s long-term goal-orientated behaviour.

Hafer (2000) found that when Ps were primed to focus on their long-term goals, they more strongly derogated, blamed and dissociated from an innocent victim.

A reverse relationship was also found in Callan, Shead & Olsens (2009) study, whereby participants were primed with a video of either an AIDs victim who had contracted the disease being careless (low BJW threat) or one who was without blame (high BJW threat) and then in a (alledgedly unrelated study) were askd to rate their preferences for different hypothetical monetary rewards - either smaller immediate rewards OR larger delayed rewards. e.g would you prefer $500 at the end of the session or $1000 in 90 days.

^they FOUND that when BJW was threatened (innocent AIDs victim) Ps tended to devalue future rewards and favour immediate reqards.

While, when BJW was not threatened (Careless AIDs victim) Ps tended to value future rewards more highly.

Question 29

How might self-blame (resulting from threats to BJW) be adaptive? how might it be maladaptive?

Answer 29

ADAPTIVE

• People can take responsibility for coping with their fate.
• They focus on the positive things that came out of it (maintain ones positive outlook and self-esteeem)
• The experience ‘guilt’ which motivates repairations.

MALADAPTIVE

• Victims unreasonably blame themselves leading to deppression and low self-esteem
• When it reflects “a false consensus”, where people resign to their unfortunate situation and their resgination or self-blame is taken by others to explain/justify that persons unfortunate situation - thus contributing to a status-quo that perpetuates such injustice.

Question 30

How might BJW be a “personal resource”? (Dalbert 2001)

Answer 30

BJW could help to maintain and doster a sense of well-being specifically in the face of negative life-events

Question 31

Is their individual difference in BJW?

Answer 31

Yes - it can be conceptualised and measured as an interindividual difference variable - e.g., Dalbert, Montada & Schmit (1987) “Belief in a Just World Scale”

Question 32

What are some of the benefits of a high BJW?

Answer 32

• Less anger at anger-provoking events (less likely to be angry if they believe that justice will prevail)
• Higher self-esteem
• Higher life-satisfaction
• Higher well-being (maintains health better due to belief that good input = good outcome)