Recalling an Unfair Experience Reduces Adolescents’ Dishonest Behavioral Intentions: The Mediating Role of Justice Sensitivity
Injustice experiences are likely to have a strong impact on—adolescents' life. However, individuals differ in how they perceive and respond to injustice depending on their justice sensitivity. Whereas several studies analyzed the relationships between justice sensitivity and antisocial behaviors in adult samples, little is known about this relationship among adolescents. The aim of the present experimental study is to expand knowledge on the antecedents and effects of justice sensitivity from the Victim (i.e., JS-Victim) and Others (i.e., JS-Observer, Perpetrator, and Beneficiary) perspective, particularly with regard to its relationship to willingness to act in dishonest behavioral intentions (e.g., stealing money or objects from classmates, teachers, or strangers). The study involved 369 Italian students (52% males; M age = 16.64, SD = 1.78). We examined the role of justice sensitivity in the relationship between the recall of unfair, fair, or neutral episodes, and the consequent willingness to perform dishonest behaviors. Results demonstrate that recalling unfair (vs. fair or neutral) episodes leads to an increase in JS-Others, which in turn decreased willingness to behave dishonestly. Conversely, JS-Victim did not mediate the relationship between the recall of unfair episodes and intentions to behave dishonestly. The present findings suggest that during adolescence JS-Others might act as a protective factor against dishonest behaviors.
KeywordsInjustice-related experiences Justice sensitivity Dishonest behavioral intentions Adolescent
This study was made possible due a FIRB 2012 grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR; Grant Number RBFR128CR6).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee (Ethical Committee of the University of Perugia) and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Baumert, A., Thomas, N., & Schmitt, M. (2012). Justice sensitivity as resource or risk factor of civic engagement. In K. J. Jonas & T. A. Morton (Eds.), The psychology of intervention and engagement following crisis (pp. 19–37). Oxford: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118347683.ch2.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Faccenda, L., Pantaléon, N., & Reynes, E. (2009). Significant predictors of soccer players’ moral functioning from components of contextual injustice, sensitivity to injustice and moral atmosphere. Social Justice Research, 224, 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0105-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Lupfer, M. B., Weeks, K. P., Doan, K. A., & Houston, D. A. (2000). Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200005/06)30:3<405:AID-EJSP997>3.0.CO;2-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rousseau, V., Salek, S., Aubé, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Distributive justice, procedural justice, and psychological distress: The moderating effect of coworker support and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015747.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schmitt, M. (1998). Gerechtigkeit und Solidaritaet im wiedervereinigten Deutschland [Justice and solidarity in the re-united Germany]. In B. Reichle & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit und Moral [Responsibility, justice and morality] (pp. 87–99). Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
- Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The justice sensitivity inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23, 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0115-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Staub, E. (2005). The roots of goodness: The fulfillment of basic human needs and the development of caring, helping and nonaggression, inclusive caring, moral courage, active bystandership, and altruism born of suffering. In G. Carlo & C. Edwards (Eds.), Moral motivation through the life span (pp. 34–72). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Vollhardt, J. R., & Staub, E. (2011). Inclusive altruism born of suffering: The relationship between adversity and prosocial attitudes and behavior toward disadvantaged outgroups. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01099.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar