v.  3-15-2012

Seminar:  Fairness in the Resolution of Social Conflict

Barnard, PSYCH 3166y

Spring, 2012

Thursday, 2:10 - 4:00

Location: 502 Diana

Larry Heuer

Department of Psychology

Barnard College

854-7507

LBH3@Columbia.edu

Office Hours: Thursday, 4:10 – 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.

Learning Objectives:

Successful participation in this course should equip students with the following skills:

The ability to identify and access the theoretical and empirical research literature on the topic of social conflict and fairness

Explain how individuals or cultures arrive at judgments expressions, or embodiments of their deeply held commitments, particularly those concerning social justice

The ability to read, and critically analyze the published research on the topic of social conflict and fairness

The ability to communicate your written and spoken thoughts clearly

The ability to propose hypothesis testing research that promises to add to the existing knowledge about the interface of social conflict and justice

The ability to design studies that employ methods well suited to the research goals (experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational)

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 of the Tuesday prior to 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 10 of the 12 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 5 references to work published in the years 2009-2012.

• A 1-2 page summary of your final paper is due on Friday, April 6. It should summarize the question that your research proposal will address, and the experiment that you will propose to test this question. It must include 5 references to work published in the years 2009-2012.

• All final papers are due by 5 p.m., April 30. Late papers will be penalized ½ letter 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 (15%), your class participation (15%), your representation of articles on which you assume a leading role (10%), your presentation of discussion leader articles (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 2012

Course Introduction

Additional 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.

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.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 435-441.

26 January 2012

SPSP – No Class

2 February 2012

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.  

Additional Reading:

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.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Jiang, S., Elechi, O., Benjamin, B., Morris, A., . . . Dupuy, P. (2010). The relationship among distributive and procedural justice and correctional life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent: An exploratory study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 7-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.11.002

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.

9 February 2012

Origins of the Justice Motive

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.

The readings below are broadly related in that they describe (mostly) evolutionary theories and research concerning the bases of human cooperation, morals, and justice judgments.

Bartal, I. B.-A., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 334, 1427-1430. .

Bowls, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

De Waal, F.B.M. (2006). Primates and philosphers: How morality evolved. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harman, O. The Price of Altuism: George Price and the search for the origins of kindness. New York: W.W. Norton.

Peterson, D. (2011) The moral lives of animals. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Tomesello, Michael. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cambridge: MIT Press.

16 February 2012

Justice Motives: I

Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. (2010). Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(2), 173-186. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019977

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. (2011). The multi-value basis of procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 541-553.

Discussion Leader

Additional Readings

Clay-Warner, J. (2001). Perceiving procedural injustice: The effects of group membership and status. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(3), 224-238.

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.

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. 

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 .

Vainio, A. (2011). Why are forest owners satisfied with forest policy decisions? Legitimacy, procedural justice, and perceived uncertainty. Social Justice Research, 24(3), 239-254. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0136-5

van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. [References]. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 34 (pp. 1-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

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.

1 March 2012
Role effects on justice

Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Jan(Pagination), No Pagination Specified. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026651

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 Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 488-502. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018921

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ﾖ1074.

Additional Readings

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.

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.

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.

March 8

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

Deutsch, M. (1990). Psychological roots of moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 21-25.

Fallis, R., & Opotow, S. (2003). Are students failing school or are schools failing students? Class cutting in high school. Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 103-119. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00007

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 ﾖ refuting the interchangeability assumption. New Ideas in Psychology, 17, 183-193.

Martin-Pena, J., & Opotow, S. (2011). The legitimization of political violence: A case study of ETA in the Basque country. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 17(2), 132-150. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10781919.2010.550225

Nagata, D. K. (1990). The Japanese-American internment: Perceptions of moral community, fairness, and redress. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 133-146.

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

Olson, J. M., Cheung, I., Conway, P., Hutchison, J., & Hafer, C. L. (2011). Distinguishing two meanings of moral exclusion: Exclusion from moral principles or principled harm-doing? Social Justice Research, 24(4), 365-390. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0141-8

Opotow, S. (1990). Deterring moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 173-182.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1-20.

Opotow, S. (2001). Reconciliation in times of impunity: Challenges for social justice. Social Justice Research, 14(2), 149-170. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012888902705

Staub, E. (1990). Moral exclusion, personal goal theory, and extreme destructiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 47-64.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The psychology of hate The psychology of hate (pp. x, 263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; US.

15 March 2012

Spring Break, No Class

22 March 2012

When does procedural fairness not matter?

Mayer, D. M., Greenbaum, R. L., Kuenzi, M., & Shteynberg, G. (2009). When do fair procedures not matter? A test of the identity violation effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 142-161. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013108

Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2006). Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 629-643. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.629

Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 305-326.
 

Discussion Leader

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.

Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Lytle, B. L. (2009). Limits on legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 567-578. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015998

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.

29 March 2012

Responding to Injustice

Carlsmith, K. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 119-137. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0068-x

Singer, T., & Steinbeis, N. (2009). Differential roles of fairness- and compassion-based motivations for cooperation, defection, and punishment Values, empathy, and fairness across social barriers (pp. 41-50). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences; US.

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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.005

Discussion Leader

 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

Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish?: Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284-299.

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.

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.

5 April 2012

Social Justice and Collective Action

Giguere, B., & Lalonde, R. (2010). Why do students strike? Direct and indirect determinants of collective action participation. Political Psychology, 31(2), 227-247. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00750.x

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.

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.

Sturmer, Simon (2004). The role of collective identification in social movement participation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 263-277.

Sturmer, S., & Simon, B. (2009). Pathways to collective protest: Calculation, identification, or emotion? A critical analysis of the role of group-based anger in social movement participation. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 681-705. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01620.x

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.

van Zomeren, M., & Spears, R. (2009). Metaphors of protest: A classification of motivations for collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 661-679. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01619.x

12 April 2012 

Procedural Justice and the Law

Vidmar, N. (2011). The psychology of trial judging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 58-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397283

Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(2), 215-235.

Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counter-terrorism policing: A study of Muslim Americans. Law & Society Review, 44(2), 365-402. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00405.x

Additional Readings:

19 April 2012

Social Identity and Procedural Fairness

Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 235-244. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012936

Leonardelli, G. J., & Toh, S. M. (2011). Perceiving expatriate coworkers as foreigners encourages aid: Social categorization and procedural justice together improve intergroup cooperation and dual identity. Psychological Science, 22(1), 110-117. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391913

Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 909-930. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.657

Additional Topics

Platow, M. J., Eggins, R. A., Chattopadhyaym, R., Brewer, G., Hardwick, L., Milsom, L., . . . Welsh, J. (2012). Two experimental tests of relational models of procedural justice: Non-instrumental voice and authority group membership. British Journal of Social Psychology.

26 April 2012

TBA

Additional Topics


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.