Skip to main content

Justice Sensitivity as a Risk and Protective Factor in Social Conflicts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Justice and Conflicts

Abstract

Individuals differ in how readily they perceive and how strongly they react to injustice. These differences are consistent across types of injustice and are stable across time. Thus, these patterns are seen as a personality trait called justice sensitivity. This trait can be differentiated into four facets that match with corresponding roles individuals take on in a justice conflict: victim sensitivity, observer sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity, and perpetrator sensitivity. Several studies have shown that observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator sensitivity are highly correlated with each other and only weakly correlated with victim sensitivity. Observer-, beneficiary-, and perpetrator-sensitive individuals seem to be primarily concerned with justice for others. In this sense, these sensitivities represent potential factors that help in constructive conflict resolution and in the prevention of conflict escalation. By contrast, victim-sensitive people seem to have a predominant interest in justice for themselves. Accordingly, several studies have shown that victim sensitivity promotes antisocial behavior. The antisocial behavior of victim-sensitive people seems to serve two functions: First, having suffered from innocent victimization previously, victim-sensitive individuals commit selfish behavior in order to balance their personal justice account. Second, in fear of being cheated, they engage in preventive strikes against those who might cheat them. Both of these motives and mechanisms are potential risks for social, organizational, and ecological conflicts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The social dilemma situation employed in this study (Gollwitzer et al., 2009) is an experimental game that requires participants to choose between cooperative and non-cooperative alternatives, yielding positive consequences for themselves and/or others.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L.-A., Stocks, E. L., Fleming, D. Y. A., Marzette, C. M., et al. (2007). Anger at unfairness: Is it moral outrage? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1272–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, A., Halmburger, A., & Schmitt, M. (2010). Determinants of civil courage: Personality and emotion. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (2001). Exploring the multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2007). Moral sentiments and cooperation: Differential influences of shame and guilt. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1025–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Raad, B. (2000). The big five personality factors. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetchenhauer, D., Goldschmidt, N., Hradil, S., & Liebig, S. (2010). Warum ist Gerechtigkeit wichtig? Antworten der empirischen Gerechtigkeitsforschung [Why justice is important? Answers of empirical justice research]. München: Roman-Herzog-Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitivity and distributive decisions in experimental games. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(5), 1015–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behavior: The sensitivity to mean intentions (SeMI) model. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 135–152). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 999–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18(2), 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, development, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathy, role-taking, guilt, and development of altruistic motives. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development: Current theory and research (pp. 124–143). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in a comprehensive moral theory. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 283–302). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelaar, T., & Au, W. T. (2003). The effects of feelings of guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpretation of the role of emotion in social interaction. Cognition and Emotion, 17(3), 429–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, L. K., Gundry, L. K., & Posig, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The relationship between equity sensitivity and perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(4), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klass, E. T. (1978). Psychological effects of immoral actions: The experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 85(4), 756–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krettek, C. (2007). Sensibilität für beobachtete Ungerechtigkeit und ihr Einfluss auf die Bereitschaft zu zivilcouragiertem Verhalten [Justice Sensitivity from observer perspective and the influcence on the willingness to display civil courage]. Unpublished Diploma thesis, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive in social behavior. Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, A. E., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, S., Okimoto, T. G., Schlösser, T., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2011). Punitive versus compensatory reactions to injustice: Emotional antecedents to third-party interventions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes, J. (1998). Eight stages in the development of research on the construct of belief in a just world. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 163–186). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 43–76). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (1986). The experience of injustice: Towards a better understanding of its phemenology. In H.-W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in interpersonal relations (pp. 103–124). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (1993). On the experience of injustice. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 223–244). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(7), 769–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohiyeddini, C., & Schmitt, M. (1997). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to unfair treatment in a laboratory situation. Social Justice Research, 10(3), 333–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L. (1993). Understanding oughts by assessing moral reasoning or moral emotions. In G. G. Noam, T. E. Wren, G. Nunner-Winkler, & W. Edelstein (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 292–309). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L., Dalbert, C., Reichle, B., & Schmitt, M. (1986). Urteile über Gerechtigkeit, “existentielle Schuld” und Strategien der Schuldabwehr [Judgments on justice, existential guilt, and defense mechanisms against guilt]. In F. Oser, W. Althof, & D. Garz (Eds.), Moralische Zugänge zum Menschen - Zugänge zum moralischen Menschen. Beiträge zur Entstehung moralischer Identität (Montada, L., Dalbert, C., Reichle, B, pp. 205–225). München: Kindt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L., & Lerner, M. (1998). Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3(4), 313–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1991). Justice and prosocial commitments. In L. Montada & H.-W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Altruism in social systems (pp. 58–81). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelissen, R. M. A., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). When guilt evokes self-punishment: Evidence for the existence of a Dobby Effect. Emotion, 9(1), 118–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, S. L., & Jackson, J. J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 1091–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who beliefes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, K. R., Wallbott, H. G., & Summerfield, A. B. (1986). Experiencing emotion: A cross-cultural study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. (1996). Individual differences in sensitivity to befallen injustice (SBI). Personality and Individual Differences, 21(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Fetchenhauer, D., Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., & Schlösser, T. (2009). Sensibilität für Ungerechtigkeit [Sensitivity to injustice]. Psychologische Rundschau, 60(1), 8–22.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Behner, R., Montada, L., Müller, L., & Müller-Fohrbrodt, G. (2000). Gender, ethnicity, and education as privileges: Exploring the generalizability of the existential guilt reaction. Social Justice Research, 13, 313–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 202–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., & Maes, J. (2006). Equity and justice. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 273–289). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., & Mohiyeddini, C. (1996). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to a real-life disadvantage. Social Justice Research, 9(3), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research, 8(4), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Rebele, J., Bennecke, J., & Förster, N. (2008). Ungerechtigkeitssensibilität, Kündigungsgerechtigkeit und Verantwortlichkeitszuschreibungen als Korrelate von Einstellungen und Verhalten Gekündigter gegenüber ihrem früheren Arbeitgeber (Post Citizenship Behavior) [Justice sensitivity, justice of layoff decisions, and responsibility attributions as correlates of attitudes toward the former employer (postlayoff reactions)]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2, 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, M., & Roussel, P. (2001). Modelling the role of organizational justice: effects on satisfaction and unionization propensity of Canadian. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 717–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (2000). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (2002). Retributive justice: Its social context. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 291–313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, I., & Smith, H. (2002). Relative deprivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 786–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R. M. A., Breugelmans, S. M., & Pieters, R. (2008). On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Thomas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thomas, N., Baumert, A., Schmitt, M. (2011). Justice Sensitivity as a Risk and Protective Factor in Social Conflicts. In: Kals, E., Maes, J. (eds) Justice and Conflicts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19034-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19035-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics