Abstract
Fairness gives social relationships structure and meaning. Individuals attach crucial importance to the perceived fairness of relationship partners which serves as a signal as to whether the relationship is viable or not. At the same time, fairness issues are sometimes controversial. For example, how do contradictory fairness rules influence reward allocation? Such contradictions of rules constitute a problem both in philosophical treatments of moral action and in the social psychology of fairness. In the context of performance, the application of one of two fairness rules appears reasonable: equity and equality. Either the allocators focus on only one of these normative rules or they attempt to generate a compromise between both rules. The reward expectation hypothesis which is part of expectation states theory offers a solution to this problem: It delineates a formula which allows an estimation of the impact of equity and equality for a given reward allocation among a known number of group members whose relative performances are quantified. The use of the formula is explained on the basis of empirical data obtained in a scenario study in which the performances of group members were depicted as unequal. Results indicate that the formula generates valid estimates of weights which represent the relative impact of equity and equality on reward allocation. In addition, the reward expectation hypothesis offers a new interpretation of the reconstruction of performance distributions on the basis of a known reward distribution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Berger, J., & Fisek, M. H. (2006). Diffuse status characteristics and the spread of status value: A formal theory. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1038–1079.
Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 110–146). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bierhoff, H.-W. (1982). Social context as determinant of perceived justice. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 13, 66–78.
Bierhoff, H.-W., Buck, E., & Klein, R. (1986). Social context and perceived justice. In H.-W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 165–185). New York: Plenum Press.
Bierhoff, H.-W., & Jonas, E. (2011). Soziale Interaktion [Social interaction]. In D. Frey & H.-W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Sozialpsychologie – Interaktion und Gruppe. (pp. 131–159). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Bierhoff, H.-W., & Rohmann, E. (2006). Conditions for establishing a system of fairness: Comment on Brosnan (2006). Social Justice Research, 19, 194–200.
Brickman, P., & Bryan, J. H. (1976). Equity versus equality as factors in children’s moral judgments of thefts, charity, and third-party transfers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 757–761.
Brosnan, S. F., & Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 163–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalbert, C., & Maes, J. (2002). Belief in a just world as a personal resource in school. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 365–381). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.
Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice. Studies in the psychology of deservingness. New York: Kluwer.
Fisek, M. H., & Hysom, S. J. (2008). Status characteristics and reward expectations: A test of a theory of justice in two cultures. Social Science Research, 37, 769–786.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Harrod, W. J. (1980). Expectations from unequal rewards. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 126–130.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Kienbaum, J., & Wilkening, F. (2009). Children’s and adolescents’ intuitive judgments about distributive justice: Integrating need, effort, and luck. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 481–498.
Lerner, M. J. (1981). The justice motive in human relations: Some thoughts on what we know and need to know about justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 11–35). New York: Plenum.
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.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy – an integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–541.
Mikula, G. (1972). Reward distribution behavior in dyads under varied performance ratios. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 3, 126–133.
Parsons, T. (1952). The social system. London: Tavistock.
Piaget, J. (1965). The social judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.
Ridgeway, C. L., Backor, K., Li, Y. E., Tinkler, J. E., & Erickson, K. E. (2009). How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. American Sociological Review, 74, 44–62.
Rohmann, E., Bierhoff, H.-W., & Schmohr, M. (2011). Narcissism and perceived inequity in attractiveness in romantic relationships. European Psychologist, 16(4).
Schwinger, T. (1986). The need principle of distributive justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 211–225). New York: Plenum Press.
Scott, J. T., & Bornstein, B. H. (2009). What’s fair in foul weather and fair? Distributive justice across different allocation contexts and goods. Journal of Politics, 71, 831–846.
Steiner, D. D., Traban, W. A., Haptonstahl, D. E., & Fointiat, V. (2006). The justice of equity, equality, and need in reward distributions: A comparison of French and American respondents. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 19, 49–74.
Stewart, P., & Moore, J. C. (1992). Wage disparities and performance expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 78–85.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic. New York: Free Press.
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 49–66). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bierhoff, HW., Rohmann, E. (2011). Justice in Performance Situations: Compromise Between Equity and Equality. In: Kals, E., Maes, J. (eds) Justice and Conflicts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19034-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19035-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)