Justice: Social Psychological Perspecti
es

basic institutions of their society. As a result, there are See also: Aristotle (384–322 BC); Criminal Justice,
no politics, at least as politics are ordinarily under- Sociology of; Equity; Justice and its Many Faces:
stood, in Rawls’ conception of political justice: no Cultural Concerns; Justice and Law; Social Justice
competition for power, no efforts at persuasion or co-
optation, no tests of our ability to use power wisely.
Politics, as ordinarily understood, are subordinated to
a set of principles of justice in Rawls’ conception of Bibliography
political justice.
But viewed from the perspective of Rawlsian and Aristotle 1956 Nicomachean Ethics. Loeb Classical Library,
Cambridge, MA
other ‘normal’ models of justice, there is strikingly Kirchheimer O 1961 Political Justice: The Use of Legal Procedure
little justice in conceptions of political justice that treat for Political Ends. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
justice as more than the application of a body of pre- Rawls J 1971 A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard
existing rules and principles. For making justice University Press, Cambridge, MA
depend on the partial and contestable judgments that Rawls J 1985 Justice as fairness: Political, not metaphysical.
inform the exercise of political power takes away the Philosophy and Public Affairs 14: 223–51
determinacy that most theorists associate with the Rawls J 1993 Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press,
concept of justice. Without stable standards equally New York
available to all, how, they ask, can we use justice to Shklar J N 1986 Legalism: Law, Morals, and Political Trials.
settle our conflicts and establish social order? There Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Shklar J N 1990 The Faces of Injustice. Yale University Press,
may well be, from their point of view, a sphere of
New Haven, CT
activity in which the exercise of power cannot be Walzer M 1983 Spheres of Justice. Basic Books, New York
guided by pre-existing rules and principles. But in that Yack B 1993 The Problems of a Political Animal: Community,
sphere we go beyond the reach of justice and have to Justice and Conflict in Aristotelian Political Thought. Uni-
call on other virtues, such as prudence, benevolence, versity of California Press, Berkeley, CA
or courage, to guide us.
Where does this controversy leave us with regard to B. Yack
the concept of political justice? The first conception of
political justice, as a particular sphere of distributive
justice, is relatively uncontroversial. As long as pol-
itical rights and privileges are distributed within a
community, there will always be debate about the best
way to do so. Such debates continue today, most often Justice: Social Psychological Perspectives
among various versions of democratic and merito-
cratic principles of distributive justice.
The other three conceptions of political justice are, 1. Definition and Subject-matter of Social
in contrast, quite controversial, as we have seen. All Psychological Discussion of Justice
three conceptions grow out of the loss of the sense that
we can derive the content and legitimacy of our Justice means that people get what they are entitled to,
standards of justice from a set of principles sanctioned or deserve, on the basis of who they are and what they
by God or nature. But Rawls responds to that loss by have done. Although clear in abstract terms, this
trying to show how human beings confronted by a definition leaves undecided what exactly particular
common political situation can construct such a set of people are entitled to get. Similarly, the basic rule of
principles for themselves without invoking higher distributive justice, that people have the right to be
authority. And those who employ the last two con- equally treated as others who are alike them, leaves
ceptions of political justice respond by insisting that unsettled the criteria according to which the likeness of
we must acknowledge and accept the partial and people should be assessed and the kind of treatment
uncertain use of power that inevitably accompanies that the people should get. Justice can be unambigu-
the exercise of justice in political life. The theoretical ously defined only on an abstract level. The abstract
difficulties that years of criticism have identified in definition is open to multiple translations into concrete
Rawls’ attempts to justify his two principles of justice terms. For that reason, it is likely that different people
raise serious doubts about his conception of political or groups differ in their justice judgments of given
justice. But the lack of determinacy and stability in the conditions or circumstances. Even if views of justice
opposing conceptions of political justice raise very are socially shared, this does not change the basically
legitimate concerns about our ability to use them to subjective nature of judgments of justice and injustice.
maintain a decent political order. Until these concerns In contrast to other scientific disciplines studying
are met by a more systematic and convincing theory, justice, social psychology does not take a normative
these conceptions of political justice seem unlikely approach. It deals with justice in a descriptive rather
to replace distributive models as the mainstream than a prescriptive way. The aim is not to define what
approach to theorizing about justice. is just and unjust, and how justice can be achieved. The

8063
Justice: Social Psychological Perspecti
es

focus on the contrary is on the subjective sense of Early social psychological conceptualizations of
justice and injustice and its impact on human action justice focused on one particular form, namely distri-
and judgment. Social psychologists study what people buti
e justice, i.e., the justice of the distribution of
regard as just and unjust under given circumstances, outcomes or resources. In addition, the early con-
how people deal with the concept of justice, how they ceptualizations concentrated on one particular prin-
react to situations that they regard as unjust, and ciple of distributive justice, the equity or contribution
under which circumstances, and why, people care principle. This principle prescribes that people’s out-
about justice. comes should be proportional to their inputs, and the
outcome-input ratios of different people should be
equal. The narrow focus of early theory and research
2. Distributi
e Justice: Early Beginnings and was later extended in several respects. Within the
De
elopment of the Field domain of distributive justice, alternative conceptual-
izations proposed the existence of multiple justice
The social psychological discussion of justice origin- norms, the most prominent being the equality principle
ated from relative deprivation research (Stouffer et al. (to each the same), the contribution or equity principle
1949, Runciman 1966) and Homans’ (1961) propo- (to each according to his contributions), and the need
sitions about distributive justice. Although in slightly principle (to each according to his needs). The multi-
different terms, all these writings proposed that people principle approaches to distributive justice assume
evaluate outcomes they receive relative to some kind that different distribution rules are regarded as just,
of comparison standard rather than in absolute terms. and serve as principles of action and evaluation, under
The comparison standards define the quality of out- different conditions (see Deutsch 1975, Mikula 1980).
come people expect to get based on the outcomes that One of the decisive conditions is the basic orientation
other people receive. The evaluation of one and the of the respective social system or group. According to
same outcome differs depending upon its position this view, the equality principle predominates in
relative to the comparison standard used. If the groups with solidarity orientation, the equity or
outcome is equal to the comparison standard it will be contribution principle within production oriented
experienced as satisfying and appropriate, if it is lower groups, and the need principle in groups with caring
it will be experienced as dissatisfying and inappro- orientation. Empirical studies in this tradition of
priate. research were designed to identify situational and
An important step in the development of the field personal conditions that determine which distribution
was the research and theorizing by Adams (1965) on principles are used and regarded as just (see To$ rnblom
affective, cognitive and behavioral consequences of 1992).
perceived inequity. Similar to Homans, the author
suggested that people consider what they contribute to
an interaction or relationship (i.e., their inputs) and 3. Procedural Justice
what they get in return (i.e., their outcomes). They
compare the ratio of their own outcomes and inputs Further developments in the field extended the focus
with the outcome–input ratio of others and expect the and considered additional forms of justice. Justice
ratios to be equal. If the outcome–input ratios of a judgments do not only refer to the way in which
person and the comparison other do not match, people outcomes are distributed, but also to the decision-
experience inequity. Inequity is an aversive state of making procedures by which the distributions are
distress that motivates people to restore equity either arrived at, i.e., procedural justice. The social psycho-
‘actually’ by behavioral means or ‘psychologically’ by logical study of procedural justice was stimulated by
cognitive reconstruction. Interestingly, equity theory the work of Thibaut and Walker (1975). These authors
claims that this holds equally for people who are worse studied people’s responses to different third-party
off and those who are better off than the comparison procedures of conflict resolution. They found that
other. Adams used the equity model to explain people regard procedures that provide them with
workers’ reactions to under- and overpayment at control of the decision-making process, and the
work. Walster et al. (1978) developed equity theory as decision itself, to be fairer. In addition, they found
a general theory of social justice and applied it to that the perceived fairness of the procedures shaped
various different kinds of social interactions and people’s satisfaction with their outcomes. Subsequent
relationships. research studied particular features of procedures that
Another important impetus came from the just contribute to the perception of procedural justice and
world hypothesis (see Lerner 1980). According to this injustice, and the consequences of these perceptions
view, people have a basic desire to believe in a just (see Lind and Tyler 1988, Tyler et al. 1997).
world in which people get what they deserve. This Justice researchers identified a variety of procedural
basic desire leads people to act, or engage in cognitive elements that contribute to perceived fairness of
distortion, in order to maintain or re-establish the procedures. For instance, Leventhal (1980) proposed
belief that the world around them is just. that procedures will be regarded just if they ensure:

8064
 Justice: Social Psychological Perspecti
es

consistent treatment across persons and over time, may come to the conclusion that they themselves are
utilization of accurate information, suppression of responsible for their own fate. They may also view
personal biases of decision makers, existence of appeal their negative situation as a result of a legitimate
mechanisms by which wrong decisions can be cor- process and thus not regard it as unjust. Finally, they
rected, representation of the affected parties in the may perceive their situation as normal and appropriate
decision-making process, and compatibility with fun- because they compare themselves predominantly with
damental moral and ethical values. Empirical evidence similar others who share the disadvantage. People also
suggests that three procedural features are particularly seem to be inclined to regard ‘what is’ as ‘what ought
relevant to the perception of procedural justice: the to be.’ Another important reason why people may not
opportunity for participation of the parties concerned, behaviorally react to injustice is that they feel power-
decision makers’ accounting for the decisions made, less and have resigned to their fate.
and treatment of concerned parties with dignity and Behavioral reactions to injustice include attempts to
respect. People consider procedures that allow them to restore justice either in the form of seeking compensa-
participate in the decision-making process and express tion or retaliating against the responsible agent, or
their opinions and views (‘voice’) to be fairer. Inter- leaving the unjust relationship or group. The like-
estingly, this seems to occur even when the expressed lihood of behavioral reactions of the former type
opinion does not influence the final decision, as long as increases when people see a chance of improving the
the respective parties feel that their views have been situation, and when they assume that the situation
seriously considered. In addition, people regard de- would not change without any action. In addition,
cisions more fair if the decision-making authorities perceived personal benefits and costs will influence
explain and account for their decisions. This gives the whether people react behaviorally or not. However,
impression of neutrality and increases people’s trust in the intensity of feelings of injustice seems to be the
the authorities. Finally, people regard procedures most relevant factor. People with strong feelings of
more fair when the authorities treat them with dignity injustice are more likely to react behaviorally to
and respect. Taken together, people seem to be con- injustice independently of the costs involved and the
cerned both about structural aspects of the decision likelihood of success. Behavioral reactions to injustice
procedures and social aspects, i.e., the enactment can occur as individual-level responses and collective
of the procedures. or group-level responses. Collective reactions are more
Perceived procedural justice has a variety of positive likely when the injustice is perceived as a collective
consequences. Procedural justice promotes people’s rather than an individual issue.
acceptance of decisions, their long-term adherence to
agreements, and their willingness to cooperate with
groups they belong to. Perceived procedural justice 5. Subjecti
ity, Di
ergent Views of Justice, and
also enhances the perceived legitimacy of civil auth- Social Conflict
orities, institutions and rules, and people’s willingness
to defer to authorities and their decisions. Finally, The subjective nature of justice judgments makes it
perceived procedural justice improves people’s sat- plausible that different people or groups differ in their
isfaction with the outcomes they receive. Strikingly, assessments of given situations. Divergent evaluations
these positive consequences result even if the decision and interpretations are particularly likely among
procedures lead to unfavorable outcomes for the people who hold different perspectives or roles in
persons concerned. relation to a perceived injustice (Mikula et al. 1998,
Tyler et al. 1997, Walster et al. 1978). Three par-
ticularly relevant perspectives are the perspective of
4. Reactions to Injustice those who suffer from the injustice (i.e., the ‘victim’),
the perspective of those who caused the situation in
Social psychological theory and research distinguished question (i.e., the ‘actor’ or ‘perpetrator’), and the
three major types of responding to injustice: actual perspective of people who perceive the critical situ-
restoration of justice by behavioral means, psycho- ation without being personally affected (i.e., the
logical or cognitive restoration of justice by changing ‘observer’). Actors typically tend to regard their own
the interpretation of the situation, and nonacting or behavior as appropriate and just, and to attribute any
resignation (see Tyler et al. 1997). People may prefer negative behavior on their part to external circum-
cognitive over behavioral reactions to injustice for stances. Victims and observers are more likely to
various reasons. People who caused injustice, and regard the same behavior as unjust, and attribute
people who are advantaged unfairly, may be inclined responsibility and blame to the actor. Similarly,
to justify the given situation to avoid the need for majorities and minorities sometimes disagree about
compensation or restitution and to protect a positive what constitutes a fair decision-making procedure in
self-image. People who are disadvantaged unfairly political settings.
may be motivated to deny being victims of injustice in Divergent views about what is just and unjust can
order to protect their self-esteem. In addition, they evoke social conflicts. The notion of justice can be

8065
Justice: Social Psychological Perspecti
es

helpful for, but also detrimental to, the limitation and 7. Areas of Social Justice Research
resolution of social conflicts (Mikula and Wenzel
2000). To be helpful, the conflicting parties have to Social justice research expanded into many different
reach a shared view of the situation and their entitle- areas of social life: work organizations, legal institu-
ments or to recognize the existence of differing but tions, educational settings, civil institutions, social
equally legitimate views of justice. Rigid ideas about policy and economics, gender issues, environmental
what is just, and the firm conviction that the own view issues, international conflicts, family issues, close
is the only true and right one, contribute to the personal relationships, and coping with life crisis and
escalation of social conflicts. Conflicting parties may victimization. People’s perceptions of justice and their
even exclude each other from the moral community reactions to injustice in work organizations have been
within which moral values and rules of justice apply. one of the main areas of social justice research from
In this case, justice loses any conflict resolving the very beginnings of equity theory. The rapid growth
function. of this line of research has led some authors to use the
generic term ‘organizational justice’ (see Cropanzano
and Greenberg 1997). Empirical evidence shows that
6. Why Do People Care About Justice? the perception of distributive justice shapes people’s
The question of why people care about justice received satisfaction with the outcomes they receive, work
different answers in different social psychological performance, absenteeism, and turnover. The per-
theories. One group of theorists assume that people ception of procedural justice influences workers’
are concerned about justice because it serves their self- organizational citizenship behaviors and reactions to a
interest of maximizing their outcomes in the long run. variety of organizational measures such as personnel
For instance, equity theorists (Walster et al. 1978) selection procedures, performance evaluations, layoff
proposed that social systems develop rules of justice, decisions, strategic organizational planning and
and induce members to follow these rules, because this change, and workplace drug screening.
can maximize collective outcomes. People expect
others to follow the rules and follow the same rules
themselves as long as it is in their interest to do so. 8. Concluding Remarks
Early theorizing on procedural justice (Thibaut and Social psychological research has substantiated im-
Walker 1975) argued in a similar way. People care pressively that people care about justice and proved
about fair procedures, and regard procedures that give that justice judgments influence human conduct and
them control over outcomes to be fairer, because they thinking. Justice matters on the interpersonal level, the
help them to maximize their outcomes in the long run. intergroup level, and the societal level, even though
The relational or group-value model of procedural differences exist with respect to the justice principles
justice (Lind and Tyler 1988, Tyler and Lind 1992) that are used in evaluations of justice and injustice, the
provides an alternative perspective. According to this perception of personal and collective injustice, and the
theory, people are concerned about their position in conditions that lead to personal level and group level
groups. They use experiences with their treatment by reactions to perceived injustice (Tyler and Smith 1998).
authorities as a source of information about their Some authors argue that moral values and rules of
position. The evidence that they are treated justly justice apply only within a limited range of social
indicates that they are regarded as valuable and relationships. People are less concerned about justice
worthy members of the group. This has positive with respect to people who are outside their own social
implications for their self-esteem and self-worth. While group or category. People can be excluded from the
providing different explanations of people’s caring moral community within which moral values and rules
about justice, due to instrumental concerns about of justice apply because they are dissimilar or different
outcomes versus relational concerns about group or because they are perceived as competitors or
status, both groups of theorists regard justice as a enemies.
means rather than an end in itself. Other authors
criticize that these views do not capture the essential See also: Conflict and Conflict Resolution, Social
feature of justice as a moral ought. Without denying Psychology of; Justice and its Many Faces: Cultural
that justice may be used as an instrumental means, Concerns; Justice, Access to: Legal Representation
they argue that justice often is an end in itself. People of the Poor; Justice: Philosophical Aspects; Social
are motivated intrinsically to behave justly, and Justice
sometimes act in ways which are not in line with self-
interested motives and maximizing own outcomes.
Future justice research will have to consider, and try to
integrate, the different theoretical positions and anal- Bibliography
yze the conditions which stimulate the two mani- Adams S J 1965 Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L
festations of justice concerns in people’s conduct and (ed.) Ad
ances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic
thinking. Press, San Diego, pp. 267–99

8066
 Ju
enile Justice: International Law Perspecti
es

Cropanzano R, Greenberg J 1997 Progress in organizational Young Persons and their Family Act 1989) in the
justice: Tunneling through the maze. International Re
iew of South Pacific, Canada (Young Offenders Act 1985, as
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 12: 317–72 amended), and Costa Rica in the Americas, Ghana,
Deutsch M 1975 Equity, equality, and need: What determines South Africa (Constitution of South Africa 1996) and
which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?
Journal of Social Issues 31: 137–49
Uganda in Africa (Child Statute 1996).
Homans G C 1961 Social Beha
ior: Its Elementary Forms. The catalyst for this reform is the United Nations
Harcourt, Brace and World, New York Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989—the first
Lerner M J 1980 The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental global treaty protecting children’s rights (see Van
Delusion. Plenum, New York Bueren 1998a). The Convention on the Rights of the
Leventhal G S 1980 What should be done with equity theory? Child enshrines the full range of civil, political,
New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. economic, social, and cultural rights. It stresses a
In: Gergen K J, Greenberg M S, Willis R H (eds.) Social holistic approach to children’s rights—all rights are
Exchange. Ad
ances in Theory and Research. Plenum, New indivisible and related. This has important implica-
York, pp. 27–55
tions for child criminal justice, as it implies that all
Lind E A, Tyler T R 1988 The Social Psychology of Procedural
Justice. Plenum, New York rights must be considered for children in the criminal
Mikula G 1980 On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In: justice system, from the right to freedom of expression
Mikula G (ed.) Justice and Social Interaction: Experimental and to the right to the highest attainable standard of
Theoretical Contributions from Psychological Research. health.
Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 127–66 Freedom of expression, protected in Articles 12 and
Mikula G, Athenstaedt U, Heschgl S, Heimgartner A 1998 Does 13 of the Convention, envisages that children must be
it only depend on the point of view? Perspective-related consulted in all decisions which affect them. This
differences in justice evaluations of negative incidents in includes the planning of child criminal justice policy
personal relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology from prevention through detention policies and condi-
28: 931–62
Mikula G, Wenzel M 2000 Justice and social conflict. Inte-
tions. Indeed, Sri Lanka was specifically criticized by
rnational Journal of Social Psychology 35: 126–35 the Committee for not taking children’s views into
Runciman W G 1966 Relati
e Depri
ation and Social Justice: A account.
Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century The Convention on the rights of the child focuses
England. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London states’ attention on children as victims of crime, an
Stouffer S A, Suchman E A, De Vinney L C, Star S A, Williams aspect of criminal justice that, given the demonization
R A, Jr. 1949 The American Soldier: Adjustments during Army of children in some countries, is often overlooked.
Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Article 39 obliges all States Parties to take appropriate
Thibaut J, Walker L 1975 Procedural Justice: A Psychological measures to promote ‘physical and psychological
Analysis. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ recovery and social reintegration’ for child victims of
To$ rnblom K Y 1992 The social psychology of distributive
justice. In: Scherer K R (ed.) Justice: Interdisciplinary Pers-
abuse, neglect, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading
pecti
es. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 177–236 treatment, and punishment. Such recovery and re-
Tyler T R, Lind E A 1992 A relational model of authority in integration services ought to occur in an environment
groups. In: Zanna M (ed.) Ad
ances in Experimental Social which fosters the health, self-respect, and dignity of the
Psychology. Plenum, New York, pp. 115–91 child.
Tyler T R, Smith H J 1998 Social justice and social movement. The principle of nondiscrimination under Article 2
In: Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G (eds.) Handbook of is also applicable to the child criminal justice system.
Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp. 585–629 In particular, the committee has noted discrimination
Tyler T R, Boeckmann R J, Smith H J, Huo Y J 1997 Social against socially and economically disadvantaged chil-
Justice in a Di
erse Society. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
dren. In relation to Bolivia, the UN Committee on the
Walster E, Walster G W, Berscheid E 1978 Equity. Theory and
Research. Allyn and Bacon, Boston Rights of the Child recommended that alternatives to
institutional care for economically and socially dis-
G. Mikula advantaged children should be created.
As a human rights treaty, the Convention removes
the debate about child criminal justice from the bitter
sphere of party politics and places the discussions and
campaigns firmly in the arena of legal commitments,
which a country is required to implement. In the 191
Juvenile Justice: International Law countries bound by the Convention, the provisions of
child criminal justice are removed from party politics
Perspectives but are used by campaigners to help shape the political
debate, particularly when drafting bills of rights and
Since the 1980s there has been a quiet revolution children’s statutes.
spreading through the world of child criminal justice. In addition, there are three sets of rules adopted by
It has spread globally as far as Australia (Young the global community which provide greater detail on
Offenders Act (1993)) and New Zealand (Children, the daily operation of child criminal justice. These

8067