Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Justifying Outcomes Versus Processes: Distributive and Procedural Justice Beliefs as Predictors of Positive and Negative Affectivity

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

System justifying beliefs can have adaptive consequences for individuals that include enhanced coping and decreased emotional distress. The present study examined whether individual differences in two kinds of system justifying beliefs uniquely predict dispositional affect. Participants from across the United States were recruited via internet to complete dispositional measures of procedural and distributive justice beliefs, and also brief measures of positive and negative affectivity. While belief in fair outcomes (distributive just world beliefs) was generally associated with greater positive affectivity, belief in fair processes (procedural just world beliefs) was modestly associated with decreased negative affectivity. In addition, positive and negative affectivity were predicted by interactions between procedural and distributive just world beliefs, with each accentuating the general emotional benefit provided by the other. Finally, an interactive effect of procedural just world beliefs and social class was obtained for positive affectivity, with greater positive affectivity occurring for disadvantaged (lower income) individuals who had strong procedural just world beliefs. In general, these results suggest the potential for unique and interactive relationships between particular system justifying beliefs and measures of emotion, especially among members of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bembenek, A. F., Beike, D. R., & Schroeder, D. A. (2007). Justice violations, emotional reactions, and justice-seeking responses. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. 13–33). Greenwich: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulman, R. J., & Wortman, C. B. (1977). Attributions of blame and coping in the “real world”: severe accident victims react to their lot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 351–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. (2008). Excluded emotions: The role of anger in responses to social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 896–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalbert, C. (1997). Coping with an unjust fate: the case of structural unemployment. Social Justice Research, 10(175), 189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an die gerechte Welt als Motiv: Validnering Zweier Skalen. Psychologische Beitrage, 29, 596–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Van den Bos, K. (2007). Justice and feeling: towards a new era in justice research. Social Justice Research, 20, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vogli, R., Ferrie, J. E., Chandola, T., Kivimäki, M., & Marmot, M. G. (2007). Unfairness and health: evidence from the Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61, 513–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzuka, J., & Dalbert, C. (2002). Mental health and personality of Slovak unemployed adolescents: the impact of belief in a just world. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 732–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1991). Human values, global self-esteem, and belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 59, 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 307, 2253–2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman, S., & Lazurus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivimäki, M., Ferrie, J. E., Brunner, E., Head, J., Shipley, M. J., Vahtera, J., et al. (2005). Justice at work and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among employees. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 2245–2251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 666–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, T., & Goold, S. (2008). The malleability of belief in a just word: evidence from a health resource allocation exercise. Psychology Journal, 5, 92–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, T., Alexander, S., Firestone, I. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2007). Development and initial validation of a procedural and distributive just world measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, T., Alexander, S., Firestone, I. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2008). Just world beliefs, perceived stress, and health behavior: the impact of a procedurally just world. Psychology & Health, 23, 849–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics, 6, 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K., Boos, A., Dalbert, C., Schöps, D., & Hoyer, J. (2006). Posttraumatic symptoms, depression, and anxiety of flood victims: the impact of the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1075–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, C., Benson, D. E., & Snyder, C. (1990). Belief in a just world and depression. Sociological Perspectives, 33, 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. M., & Douglas, K. M. (2005). Justice for all, or just for me? More support for self-other differences in just world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 637–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: tests of main and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New Jersey: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomaka, J., & Blascovich, J. (1994). Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of and subjective physiological and behavioral responses to potential stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 732–740.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: procedural justice. Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & McGraw, K. M. (1986). Ideology and the interpretation of personal experience: procedural justice and political quiescence. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 595–629). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273–300). New Jersey: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2003). Physiological relaxation: stress reduction through fair treatment. Social Justice Research, 16, 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2005). How can justice be used to manage stress in organizations. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 383–410). New Jersey: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, R., Wit, A., Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (1996). The effects of unfair procedure on negative affect and protest. Social Justice Research, 9, 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakslak, C., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to Brian Zikmund-Fisher and other members of the Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine (Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Michigan) for their assistance with data collection. Funding for collection of this data came from a grant from the National Institutes for Health (NIH R01 CA87595). Portions of this research were presented at the 2007 Psychology and Social Justice Conference (New York).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Occupational and Environmental Health, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University, 3800 Woodward Avenue, Suite 808, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Todd Lucas

Authors
  1. Todd Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd Lucas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lucas, T. Justifying Outcomes Versus Processes: Distributive and Procedural Justice Beliefs as Predictors of Positive and Negative Affectivity. Curr Psychol 28, 249–265 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-009-9066-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-009-9066-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation