Research on justice has produced two literatures, procedural justice and
distributive justice. Procedural justice research has focused on the
psychology of procedural preference, establishing reliable preferences for
adjudication over other dispute resolution procedures. Procedural justice
theories suggest these preferences are based on the concern of participants
with decision and process control. Distributive justice theories have
examined the justice rules that decision-makers use to determine the
appropriate distribution of resources, emphasizing the interpersonal
relationships among participants in determination of the “fair” rule for that
dispute. Research distinguishing these two justice literatures has concluded
that procedural justice concerns are the more robust: that procedural
manipulations are more determinative of fairness perceptions than are the
rules used for allocation outcomes. This research re-examines that
conclusion, using M. J. Lerner’s justice motive theories (1977, 1981) as the
bases of analysis for distributive justice while assessing the importance of
interpersonal relationship characteristics on procedural justice phenomena.
Three studies tested fairness perceptions of conflict scenarios constructed
to describe the relational characteristics of Lerner’s theories. Study 1
examines procedural preferences among adjudication, negotiations and
joint problem-solving under different interpersonal relationships outlined in
Lerner’s original forms of justice (1977), and assesses the distribution rule
preferences associated with those relationships. Study 2 tests the
evaluations of fairness of those justice procedures and distribution rules
across Lerner’s interpersonal relationship characteristics. Study 3
investigates the impact of Lerner’s revised forms of justice (1981) on
fairness of distribution rules and on participant concern for process and
decision control. Few consistent results for procedural justice emerged
across the first 2 studies: Psychological relations of identity/unit/nonunit
influenced procedural preference, with joint problem-solving most robust.
Adjudication was not the preferred justice procedure. Distributive justice
rule preference and fairness ratings in studies 1 and 2 offered only
inconsistent and partial support for Lerner’s original forms of justice.
Studies 1 and 2 suggested that people preferred a cooperative justice
procedure (joint problem-solving) but a competitive distribution rule
(justified self-interest). Results from Study 3 similarly presented only
partial support for Lerner’s revised justice theory: Only two of six justice
rules tested matched a relationship characteristic theorized as determinative
of perceived fairness, those being utilitarian decisions and legal contest.
Study 3 results showed process and decision control influenced by
relationship characteristics: Nonunit relationships were associated with
both third-party process control and third-party decision control. Results
of the three studies are discussed in terms of their implications for Lerner’s
theories and the interaction of distributive and procedural justice
literatures. It is apparent that while interpersonal relationships influence
both procedural fairness and distribution rule fairness, the power of
procedural and distributive justice theories in predicting fairness is weak. / Graduate
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uvic.ca/oai:dspace.library.uvic.ca:1828/9705 |
| Date | 17 July 2018 |
| Creators | Huxtable, Robert Dennis |
| Contributors | Hoppe, Ronald A. |
| Source Sets | University of Victoria |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | Available to the World Wide Web |
Page generated in 0.0089 seconds