Cohn E S, White S O, Sanders J
Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham 03824, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2000 Oct;24(5):553-79. doi: 10.1023/a:1005571012599.
The paper examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on judgments in seven countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States). Subjects were presented with each of two experimental vignettes: one in which the actor unsuccessfully appeals being fired from his job and one in which the actor unsuccessfully goes to an employment agency to seek a job; they were asked to rate the justness of the outcome and how fairly the actor had been treated. The vignettes manipulated deservingness and need of the actor (distributive justice factors) and impartiality and voice in the hearing (procedural justice factors). Four hypotheses were tested: first, a distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings; second, a procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved; third, because of their recent socialist experience, Central and Eastern European respondents make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information than Western respondents; and fourth, that distributive justice and procedural justice factors interact. The distributive justice hypothesis is supported in both vignettes. The procedural justice hypothesis receives some support. Impartiality is more important in the first vignette and voice is more important in the second vignette. The interaction hypothesis was not supported in the first vignette, but does receive some support in the second vignette. The cultural hypothesis is not supported in either vignette. The implications for distributive and procedural justice research are discussed.
本文考察了分配正义和程序正义变量对七个国家（保加利亚、法国、匈牙利、波兰、俄罗斯、西班牙和美国）的判断的影响。受试者被呈现两个实验性短文：一个是演员被解雇后上诉失败，另一个是演员去职业介绍所找工作失败；他们被要求对结果的公正性以及演员受到的公平对待程度进行评分。短文操纵了演员的应得性和需求（分配正义因素）以及听证中的公正性和发言权（程序正义因素）。测试了四个假设：第一，分配正义假设，即在这些情况下应得性比需求更重要；第二，程序正义假设，即发言权和公正性的重要性因遭遇的性质和解决问题的场所而异；第三，由于中东欧受访者最近有社会主义经历，他们比西方受访者更多地使用需求信息，而较少使用应得性信息；第四，分配正义和程序正义因素相互作用。在两个短文中分配正义假设都得到了支持。程序正义假设得到了一些支持。在第一个短文中公正性更重要，在第二个短文中发言权更重要。相互作用假设在第一个短文中未得到支持，但在第二个短文中得到了一些支持。文化假设在两个短文中均未得到支持。文中讨论了对分配正义和程序正义研究的启示。
