Abstract
In an experimental study, participants read a scenario about five business partners who sold plants at a flea market. Each partner obtained a different outcome and still had to pay the costs of the partnership. Participants either had to indicate what they considered to be a fair distribution of the costs (given each individual partner's earnings) or what they considered to be a fair distribution of the net results (the total outcome minus the costs). The total outcome was either higher or lower than the costs (i.e., the enterprise resulted in a net profit or a net loss). The results indicate that fairness judgments are affected by the target of distribution. Negative outcomes are distributed differently than positive outcomes, and within the domain of negative outcomes, marked differences are observed between costs and net losses. The results are explained in terms of the differential salience of the distribution of the net result.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Baron, J. (1995). Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 8: 71–83.
Harris, R. J., and Joyce, M. A. (1980). What's fair? It depends on how you phrase the question. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38: 165–179.
Komorita, S. S., and Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology 46: 183–207.
Messick, D. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In Mellers, B. A., and Baron, J. (eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 11–31.
Messick, D. M. (1995). Equality, fairness, and social conflict. Social Justice Research 8: 153–173.
Messick, D. M., and Schell, T. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making. Acta Psychologica 80: 311–323.
Messick, D. M., and Sentis, K. P. (1983). Fairness, preference, and fairness biases. In Messick, D. M., and Cook, K. S. (eds.), Equity Theory, Praeger, New York, pp. 61–94.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocations: A typology and a model for conflicting justice principles. In Lawler, E. J., and Markovsky, B. (eds.), Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 141–168.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In Scherer, K. R. (ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 177–236.
Törnblom, K. Y., and Jonsson, D. R. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly 48: 249–261.
Törnblom, K. Y., and Jonsson, D. R. (1987). Distribution vs. retribution: The perceived justice of the contribution and equality principles for cooperative and competitive relationships. Acta Sociologica 30: 25–52.
Törnblom, K. Y., Mühlhausen, S. M., and Jonsson, D. R. (1991). The allocation of positive and negative outcomes: When is the equality principle fair for both? In Vermunt, R., and Steensma, H. (eds.), Social Justice in Human Relations, Vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 59–100.
Van Dijk, E., and Wilke, H. (1993). Differential interests, equity, and public good provision. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 29: 1–16.
Van Dijk, E., and Wilke, H. (1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison between Public Good dilemmas and Resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31: 1–27.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., and Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Introduction and literature review. In Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., and Wilke, H. A. M. (eds.), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 3–28.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., and Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Wit, A. P., Wilke, H. A. M., and Oppewal, H. (1992). Fairness in asymmetric social dilemmas. In Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., and Wilke, H. A. M. (eds.), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 183–197.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Dijk, E., Engelen, M., van Leeuwen, E. et al. Distributive Justice and the Allocation of Costs, Losses, and Profits. Social Justice Research 12, 5–18 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023222206343
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023222206343