Seminar: Fairness in the Resolution of Social Conflict

Seminar: Fairness in the Resolution of Social Conflict

Barnard, PSYCH 3166y

Spring, 2006

Thursday, 2:10 - 4:00

227 Milbank Hall

Larry Heuer

Department of Psychology

Barnard College

854-7507

LBH3@Columbia.edu

Office Hours: Thursday, 4:15 - 5:30

This seminar will focus on research concerning the psychology of procedural fairness. Among the questions we will investigate are ones concerning the meaning of procedural fairness, the social and psychological antecedents and consequences of fairness, and the moderators of fairness. We will rely almost entirely on published research reports to advance our inquiry, and we will draw most heavily from research designed to test psychological theories of procedural fairness.

Weekly Assignments

(1) Everyone is expected to read the core articles prior to our weekly meetings, and to and come to class prepared to discuss their thoughts on these articles.

(2) Everyone must write a brief "reaction paper" about the readings. The reaction papers must be submitted to the Columbia University Courseworks site no later than 8 pm the night before our class meeting (later submissions will not be credited). These reaction papers should reflect some critical thoughts or integration of the readings that you can draw on during our class discussion.

At a minimum, each student must submit a reaction paper and be present in 9 of the 11 class meetings at which readings are assigned. No reaction paper will be credited if you are not present in class.

(3) Each week one student will assume a lead role on each of our assigned articles (so, for example, on January 26, three students will each be prepared to summarize the contents of one of our three assigned articles). Each of you will be expected to do this at least once, and I will grant some additional credit to those of you who take on a second article, in order to help us cover all of the articles we will read this semester.

(4) In addition, in some weeks, I have assigned an additional "discussion leader" article. Two students will share the responsibility for presenting the contents of this article to the class sometime during our discussion.

(5) A central goal of this course is to identify areas in which the current state of theorizing and research on the psychology of fairness leaves important theoretical issues unresolved or applied questions unanswered. Our discussions will be geared toward identifying fruitful avenues for research which addresses these limitations. Consistent with this approach, each student is required to write a paper in which some area of the research relevant to this class is reviewed, a problem is identified, and a study is proposed which addresses this problem. This paper should be written in a format consistent with the guidelines set out in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association--it should begin with an abstract, followed by an introduction, method section, and references.

The paper may not exceed 15 pages in length (exclusive of references), and it must include as least 4 references to work published in the years 2004-2006.

An example of a research proposal is linked here for your consideration (Heuer, NSF, 06). If you want to see others, I will help you locate them.

All final papers are due by 5 p.m. on May 1. Late papers will be penalized ½ grade per day. Papers should be submitted as MS Word attachments to an email addressed to me. No paper will be accepted unless it has been proposed during class in class on or before April 6 (earlier proposals are very welcome) and a brief written summary of your proposal has been approved by me.

Grading

Final grades will be based on your weekly reaction papers (10%), your class participation (10%), your representation of articles on which you assume a leading role (10%), your presentation of discussion leader articles (10%), your presentation of your final paper proposal (10%), and your final paper (50%).

You are encouraged to use my office hours and class time to discuss the development of your ideas and the methods you will employ to test them.

19 January 2006

Course Introduction

26 January 2006

Distributive Justice

Grote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause of consequence of marital distress? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281-293.

Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Newman, D. G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). Experiments behind the veil: Structural influences on judgments of social justice. Political Psychology, 24, 519-547.

van den Bos, K., Peters, S. L., Bobocel, D. R., & Ybema, J. F. (in press). On preferences and doing the right thing: Satisfaction with advantageous inequity when cognitive processing is limited. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 21-43.

Discussion Leader

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-200). New York: Academic Press.

2 February 2006

The Justice Motive I

Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature,425, 297-299.

Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (2003). An Analysis of Empirical Research on the Scope of Justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 311-323.

Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T., & Holmes, J. G. (1976). Deserving and the emergence of forms of justice. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 133-162). New York: Academic Press.

Discussion Leader

Additional Readings

9 February 2006

The Justice Motive II

Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838.

van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79(3), 355-366.

Heuer, L., Penrod, S., Hafer, C. L., & Cohn, I. (2002). The role of resource and relational concerns for procedural justice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1468-1482.

Discussion Leader

Heuer, L., & Stroessner, S. J. (2003). Testing a multi-motivational model of procedural fairness. Paper presented at the Justice Pre-Conference of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Lerner, M. J. (2003). The Justice Motive: Where Social Psychologists Found It, How they Lost It, and Why They May Not Find It Again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 388-399.

Additional Readings

De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 151-218). New York: Academic Press.

Skitka, L. J. (2003). Of Different Minds: An Accessible Identity Model of Justice Reasoning. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 286-297.

16 February 2006

A broad overview of motive, goals, values, and social relationships

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891.

Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451-471.

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.

Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 574-586.

Discussion Leader

Additional Readings

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. [References]. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 25 (pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

23 February 2006

Responding to Injustice

Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: The psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 781-795.

Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. (2005). Does activating justice help or hurt in promoting forgiveness? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 290-297.

Kray, L. J., & Lind, E. A. (2002). The injustices of others: Social reports and the integration of others’ experiences in organizational justice judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 906-924.

Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, A. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300(5626),1755-1758.

Additional Readings

Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review 83, 85-113.

2 March 2006

Application: Affirmative Action

Federico, CM; Sidanius, J (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 488-502.

Kravitz, D. A., & Klineberg, S. L. (2000). Reactions to two versions of affirmative action action among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 597-611.

Bobocel, D., Son Hing, L. S., Davey, L. M., Stanley, D. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75(3), 653-669.

Discussion Leader

Additional Readings

Bobocel, D., Son Hing, L. S., Holmvall, C. M., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Policies to redress social injustice: Is the concern for justice a cause both of support and of opposition? In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 204-225). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cropanzano, R., Slaughter, J. E., & Bachiochi, P. D. (2005). Organizational Justice and Black Applicants' Reactions to Affirmative Action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1168-1184.

Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., et al. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58(2), 93-115.

Crosby, F. J., & Franco, J. L. (2003). Connections Between the Ivory Tower and the Multicolored World: Linking Abstract Theories of Social Justice to the Rough and Tumble of Affirmative Action. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 362-373.

Elkins, T. J., Bozeman, D. P., Phillips, J. S. (2003). Promotion decisions in an affirmative action environment: Can social accounts change fairness perceptions? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6): 1111-1139.

Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions in the face of discrimination. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83(3), 493-509.

9 March 2006

Social Comparison and Attribution/Deservingness and Entitlement

Feather, N. T. (2003). Distinguishing between deservingness and entitlement: Earned outcomes versus lawful outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 367–385.

Hareli, S. (1999). Justice and deservingness judgments – refuting the interchangeability assumption. New Ideas in Psychology, 17, 183–193.

Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279-1292.

Discussion Leader

Major, B. (1993). Gender, entitlement, and the distribution of family labor. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 141-159.

Mikula, G. (2003). Testing an attribution-of-blame model of judgments of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 793-811.

16 March 2006

Spring Break – No Class

23 March 2006

Respect

Simon, B., & Sturmer, S. (2005). In search of the active ingredient of respect: A closer look at the role of acceptance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 809-818.

Van Prooijen, J. W., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2005). Procedural justice and intragroup status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 664-676.

De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Am I Respected or Not?: Inclusion and Reputation as Issues in Group Membership. Social Justice Research, 18(2), 121-153.

Discussion Leader Readings

Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., & Spears, R. (2004). Sources of respect: The effects of being liked by ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 155-172.

Additional Readings

Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & De Gilder, D. (2006). The Carrot and the Stick: Affective Commitment and Acceptance Anxiety as Motives for Discretionary Group Efforts by Respected and Disrespected Group Members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 244-255.

30 March 2006

Role effects on justice

Chen, Y.-R., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it "a pleasure to do business with you?" The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 92(1-2), 1-21.

Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Kattan, A. (2005). The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients. Unpublished manuscript.

Van Yperen, N. W., Van den Bos, K., & De Graaff, D. C. (2005). Performance-based pay is fair, particularly when I perform better: Differential fairness perceptions of allocators and recipients. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 741-754.

Discussion Leader

Diekmann, K. A., Samuels, S. M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061–1074.

Additional Readings

van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. (2001). The psychology of own versus others' treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1324-1333.

van Prooijen, J.W., van den Bos, K., &Wilke, H. A. M. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353–1361.

6 April 2006

Final Paper Research Proposals

Written proposals must be in my email box by 5 pm on April 7.

13 April 2006

Restorative Justice (Attendance Optional)

Guest Instructor: Diane Sivasubramaniam

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

Roberts, J.V., & Stalans, L. J. (2004). Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research, 17, 315-334.

Skarlicki, D. P., Ellard, J. H., and Kelln, B. R. C. (1998). Third-party perceptions of a layoff: Procedural, derogation, and retributive aspects of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 119-127.

20 April 2006

Moderators of the concern with fairness

De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 157-173.

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. (2005). Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: A test of the loss aversion explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(5), 527-534.

Van Beest, I. V., Van Dijk, E. V., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2005). Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 609-617.

Discussion Leader

Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value model of justice reasoning. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 588-597.

Additional Readings

De Cremer, D., & Alberts, H. (2004). When procedural fairness does not influence how positive I feel: The effects of voice and leader selection as a function of belongingness need. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34 (3), 333-344.

Huo, Y. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 336-348.

van Prooijen, J. W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). Group Belongingness and Procedural Justice: Social Inclusion and Exclusion by Peers Affects the Psychology of Voice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 87(1), 66-79.

27 April 2006

Procedural Justice and Culture

See the "Shared Files" section of Courseworks for a copy of the Brockner et al article.

Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300-315.

Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73(4), 767-780.

Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. (2000). Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation in the psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 100-132.

Additional Readings

Brockner, J., Chen, Y.-R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2000). Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 138-159.

Kwong, J. Y., & Leung, K. (2002). A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability: Importance of the relationship. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 278-299.

Leung, K. (1986). Cross-cultural study of procedural fairness and disputing behavior. U Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1.

Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53(5), 898-908.

Leung, K., & Lind, E. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(6), 1134-1140.

Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. (2001). Justice through the lens of culture and ethnicity. In Sanders, Joseph (Ed); Hamilton, V Lee (Ed) (2001) Handbook of justice research in law (pp 343-378) xii, 388pp.

Leung, K., Au, Y. F., Fernandez-Dols, J. M., & Iwawaki, S. (1992). Preference for methods of conflict processing in two collectivist cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27(2), 195-209.

Lind, E. A., Huo, Y. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1994). . . . And justice for all: Ethnicity, gender, and preferences for dispute resolution procedures. Law & Human Behavior, 18(3), 269-290.

Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 6(4), 1138-1163.