Seminar: Fairness
in the Resolution of Social Conflict
Barnard, PSYCH 3166y
Spring, 2009
Thursday, 4:10 - 6:00
Location: 214 Milbank Hall
Larry
Heuer
Department of Psychology
Barnard College
854-7507
LBH3@Columbia.edu
Office Hours: Thursday,
12:30 - 2:00
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) 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.
(4) 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 2006-2009.
All final papers are due by
5 p.m. on April 30. 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
16 (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.
22 January
2009
Course Introduction
29 January
2009
Distributive Justice
Louis, W. R., Duck, J. M.,
Terry, D. J., Schuller, R. A., & Lalonde, R. N. (2007). Why Do Citizens Want
to Keep Refugees Out? Threats, Fairness and Hostile Norms in the Treatment of
Asylum Seekers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1),
53-73.
Verboon, P., & van
Dijke, M. (2007). A self-interest analysis of justice and tax compliance: How
distributive justice moderates the effect of outcome favorability. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 28(6), 704-727.
van den Bos, K.,
Peters, S. L., Bobocel, D., & Ybema, J. F. (2006). On preferences and doing
the right thing: Satisfaction with advantageous inequity when cognitive
processing is limited. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3),
273-289.
Discussion Leader
Walster, E., & Walster,
G. W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3),
21-43.
Addititional Reading:
Adams,
J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-297). New York: Academic
Press.
Grote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in
the family: Cause or 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.
Stouffer, S. A., Suchman,
E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1949). The
American soldier: Adjustment during army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5 February
2009
The
Justice Motive I
Brosnan, S. F.,
& de Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425,
297-299.
Lerner, M. J.,
& Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer's reaction to the "innocent victim":
Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4,
203-210.
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.
Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A.
B. , Lieberman, M. D. (2008). The Sunny Side of Fairness: Preference for
Fairness Activates Reward Circuitry (and Disregarding Unfairness Activates
Self-Control Circuitry). Psychological Science, 19(4), 339-347.
Discussion
Leader
Range, F Horn, L, Viranyi,
Z, & Huber, L. (2008). The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in
dogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(1), 340-345.
Additional
Readings
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.
12 February
2009
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.
Heuer, L., & Stroessner, S. J. (In
preparation). Testing a multi-motivational model of procedural
fairness.
Clay-Warner, J.
(2001). Perceiving procedural injustice: The effects of group membership and
status. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(3), 224-238.
Discussion
Leader
Janoff-Bulman, R.,
& Werther, A. (2008). The social psychology of respect: Implications for
delegitimization and reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy & J. D.
Fisher (Eds.), Social Psychology of inter-group teconciliation: From violent
conflict to peaceful co-existence (pp. 145-171). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Stahl, T. V.,Vermunt,
R., & Ellemers, N. (2008). For love or money? How
activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to
decision-making procedures. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44(1), 80-94.
19 February 2009
The Norm of
Self-Interest
Hafer, C., & Heuer,
L. (Under Review). From Weird to Revered: An Alternative Interpretation of
Evidence for a Prescriptive Norm of Self-Interest.
Miller, D. T., &
Ratner, R. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of
self-interest. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(1),
53-62.
Ratner, R. K., &
Miller, D. T. (2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social
action. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(1), 5-16.
Discussion
Leader
Holmes, J. G., Miller,
D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak of
self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38(2), 144-151.
Additional Readings
26 February
2009
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.
Additional Readings
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.
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.
5 March
2009
TBA -- Guest Host or
Class Cancellation
12 March 2009
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. Law & Human Behavior, 31,
573-610.
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.
March 19
Spring Break
26 March 2009
Deservingness
Feather, N. T. (2003).
Distinguishing between deservingness and entitlement: Earned outcomes versus
lawful outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 367-385.
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.
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.
Additional
Readings
Feather, N. T. (1996).
Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to authoritarianism, values,
perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 571-587.
Hareli, S. (1999). Justice and deservingness judgments –
refuting the interchangeability assumption. New Ideas in Psychology, 17,
183-193.
Mikula, G. (2003). Testing an
attribution-of-blame model of judgments of injustice. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 33, 793-811.
2 April 2009
Moderators of the concern with
fairness, I
See,
K. (2009). Reactions to decisions with uncertain consequences, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 96(1) Jan 2009, 104-118
De Cremer, D., &
Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural
justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 157-173.
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
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.
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.
9 April 2009
Moderators of the concern with
fairness, II
Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2002). When
due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt
or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 305-326.
Skitka, L. J.,
& Mullen, E. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world
political context: A test of the Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10),
1419-1429.
Skitka, L., &
Mullen, E. (2008). Moral convictions often override concerns about procedural
fairness: A reply to Napier and Tyler. Social Justice Research, 21,
529-546.
Napier, J. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Does Moral
Conviction Really Override Concerns About Procedural Justice? A Reexamination
of the Value Protection Model. Social Justice Research, 21, 509-528.
Discussion
Leader
Additional
Readings
16
April 2009
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.
23 April 2009
Social Justice and Collective Action
Martin, J., Scully, M.,
& Levitt, B. (1990). Injustice and the legitimation of revolution: Damning
the past, excusing the present, and neglecting the future. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 59(2), 281-290.
Stahl, T., Vermunt,
R., & Ellemers, N. (2008) For love or money? How activation of relational
versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decision-making procedures.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 80-94.
Sturmer, Simon
(2004). The role of collective identification in social movement
participation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3),
263-277.
Additional
Readings
Peate, V. G., Platow, M.
J., & Eggins, R. A. (2008). Collective voice and support for social
protest among Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians: Considering the role
of procedural fairness in an intergroup conflict of interest. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 60(3), 175-185.
van den Bos, K.,
Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair
procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2) 324-336.
30 April 2009
Kassin, S.
(2005). On the psychology of confessions. American Psychologist, 60(3),
215-228.
Hartwig,M.,
Granhag, P.A., Stromwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting Deception Via
Strategic Disclosure. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 469-484.
Vrij, A., Samantha, A.M.,
Fisher, R.P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing Cognitive
Load to Facilitate Lie Detection: The Benefit of Recalling an Event in Reverse
Order, (2008). Law & Human Behavior, 32, 253-265.
Additional Readings:
Granhag, P.A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective
on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading.
Psychology, Crime, & Law, 14(3),
189-200.
Additional Readings
Self-Interest Economic
models (of attitudes, preferences, ideology...)
Fong, C. (2001). Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for
redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 82, 225-246.
Gilens, M. (1999).
Why Americans hate welfare:
Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., &
Sullivan, B. N. (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, 33(1),
13-36.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., &
Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Exceptions that prove the rule--Using a theory of
motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and
political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003). Psychological
Bulletin, 129(3), 383-393.
Kluegel, J.
R. & Eliot R. S. (1986). Beliefs About Inequality: American's Views of
What is and What Ought to Be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Mansbridge, J. (Ed.). (1990). Beyond
Self-Interest. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Miller, D. T., &
Ratner, R. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of
self-interest. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(1),
53-62.
Application: Affirmative
Action
Crosby, F. J., Iyer,
A., Clayton, S., et al. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the
policy debates. American Psychologist, 58(2), 93-115.
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.
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.
Discussion
Leader
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.
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., &
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.