Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Psychology of Social Justice in Political Thought and Action

  • Chapter
Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research

Abstract

Psychological research at the intersection of social justice and political behavior is part of the vibrant, growing field of political psychology. The present chapter addresses this research and focuses especially on justice-related thoughts, feelings, and actions of political laypersons. We highlight three lines of research that link laypersons’ evaluations of distributive and procedural injustice with political attitudes and behavior. First, political science and psychology provide evidence that beliefs about social justice reflect key elements in political ideologies. For example, conservatives (a) are less likely to prioritize issues of fairness and social justice when making moral judgments, (b) are more likely to evaluate distributive justice in terms of principles of merit than equality, and (c) more readily interpret requests for public support on behalf of disadvantaged groups as undeserved, in comparison to liberals. These findings are discussed in regard to psychological theories linking political ideology with motivated social cognition. Second, we outline how perceived procedural justice and perceived political legitimacy are related and mutually affect each other. The more political authorities are seen as reigning in line with criteria of procedural justice, the more they are perceived as trustworthy, legitimate, and entitled to lead. Third, we outline how justice perceptions relate to protest intentions and behavior. Whereas perceived social injustice provides a strong motivation to participate in political protest, we also address the question of why people frequently fail to protest against sources of disadvantage and deprivation. In the final part of the chapter, we suggest avenues for future research.

[T]he prevailing belief in ‘social justice’ is at present probably the gravest threat to most other values of a free civilization.

— Friedrich August von Hayek

If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.

— Ernesto Guevara

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Haidt and Graham (2007) argue, with apparent approval, that conservative morality is more “balanced” than liberal morality. However, Jost (2012) pointed out that that the scales used to measure moral intuitions suffer from the problem of acquiescence response bias and that conservative patterns of responding suggest general agreement with all items and a lack of differentiation among potentially competing moral principles rather than “balance” per se.

References

  • Amstutz, M. R. (2006). Restorative justice, political forgiveness, and the possibility of political reconciliation. In D. Philpott (Ed.), The politics of past evil: Religion, reconciliation, and the dilemmas of transitional justice (pp. 151–188). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. C. (2012). The system stabilizing role of identity management strategies: Social creativity can undermine collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 647–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E., & Zhou, S. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C., & McComas, K. A. (2005). Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Communication Theory, 15, 414–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierbrauer, G., & Klinger, E. W. (2002). Political ideology, perceived threat, and justice towards immigrants. Social Justice Research, 15, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A., Highfield, T., & Burgess, J. (2013). The Arab Spring and social media audiences: English and Arabic Twitter users and their networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 871–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J., Perkowitz, W., Lurigio, A., & Weaver, K. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, N. D., & Lavine, H. (1997). Need-efficiency trade-offs in the allocation of resources: Ideological and attributional differences in public aid decision making. Social Justice Research, 10, 289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clawson, R. A., Kegler, E. R., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2001). The legitimacy-conferring authority of the U.S. supreme court an experimental design. American Politics Research, 29, 566–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L. (2016). Restorative justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 257–272). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1183–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 151–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, E., Gallery, K., Coyle, M., & Commissioners, I. R. (2009). Procedural justice principles and tax compliance in Ireland: A preliminary exploration in the context of reminder letters. Journal of Finance and Management in Public Services, 8, 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth, S. J. (2003). Congress and citizen discontent public evaluations of the membership and ones own representative. American Politics Research, 31(1), 66–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1985). Attitudes, values, and attributions: Explanations for unemployment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 876–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feygina, I., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Procedural justice and system-justifying motivations. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 351–370). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1982a). Why are the poor always with us? Explanations for poverty in Britain. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1982b). Explanations for unemployment in Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25, 119–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gewirth, A. (1984). Ethics. In The encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed., Vol. 6, pp. 976–998). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L. (2006). Overcoming apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 60, 82–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L., Caldiera, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2003). The Supreme Court and the U.S. presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise? British Journal of Political Science, 33, 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Judging passions: Moral emotions in persons and groups. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 797–832). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2006). The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: A group dominance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 656–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., Johnson, C., & Watson, L. (2016). Social dynamics of legitimacy and justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 425–444). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., Törnblom, K., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Distributive justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 201–218). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (2012). Left and right, right and wrong. Science, 337, 525–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false-consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Chaikalis-Petritsis, V., Abrams, D., Sidanius, J., van der Toorn, J., & Bratt, C. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 197–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Hawkins, C. B., Nosek, B. A., Hennes, E. P., Stern, C., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, J. (2014). Belief in a just god (and a just society): A system justification perspective on religious ideology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34, 56–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1122–1165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Stern, C., & Kalkstein, D. A. (2012). What’s so insidious about “peace, love, and understanding”? A system justification perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System justification theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 313–343). London, England: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S., & Gearhart, S. (2010). E-government and civic engagement: How is citizens’ use of city web sites related with civic involvement and political behaviors? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 443–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1996). The social psychology of collective action: Identity, injustice and gender. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw, T. S., & Alexander, S. (2003). Procedural fairness, blame attributions, and presidential leadership. Social Justice Research, 16, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Hogan, C. M., & Chow, R. M. (2009). On the malleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 857–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P., Albaugh, M., Farber, E., Daniels, J., Logan, R. L., & Olson, B. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 978–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, L., & Sanklecha, P. (2016). Philosophy of justice: Extending liberal justice in space and time. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 15–35). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. (1973). Ideology and criminal justice policy: Some current issues. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Ordonez, L. D. (1993). Judgments of social justice: Compromises between equality and efficiency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 629–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam, F. M. (2013). The psychology of dictatorship. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L. (2007). Conflicts and the justice of conflict resolution. In K. Törnblom & R. Vermunt (Eds.), Distributive and procedural justice. Research and applications (pp. 255–268). Burlington, VT: Ashgate/Glower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (2004). The role of trust in nurturing compliance: A study of accused tax avoiders. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19, 565–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, J. L., Mandisodza, A. N., Andersen, S. M., & Jost, J. T. (2006). System justification in responding to the poor and displaced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6, 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. A., & Hafer, C. L. (2001). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 157–175). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Through rose-colored glasses: System-justifying beliefs dampen the effects of relative deprivation on well-being and political mobilization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 991–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Tatar, D. G., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1999). Who gets what and why: Determinants of social allocations. Political Psychology, 20, 127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, K. A. (1987). What’s fair is fair—Or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothmund, T., Baumert, A., & Zinkernagel, A. (2014). The German “Wutbürger”: How justice sensitivity accounts for individual differences in political engagement. Social Justice Research, 27(1), 24–44. doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0202-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachweh, P. (2016). Social justice and the welfare state: Institutions, outcomes, and attitudes in comparative perspective. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 293–313). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 491–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1205–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J. (2009). Exploring the “lost and found” of justice theory and research. Social Justice Research, 22, 98 –116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. R., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 171–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Hagen, M. G., Tetlock, P. E., & Brady, H. E. (1986). Reasoning chains: Causal models of policy reasoning in mass publics. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 405–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 433–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, K. (2013). Motivated inaction: When collective disadvantage does not induce collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1997–2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 59–99). Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 330–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tausch, N., Becker, J., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Singh, P., & Siddiqui, R. N. (2011). Explaining radical group behaviour: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and non-normative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1984). Justice in the political arena. In R. Folger (Ed.), Justice: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 189–225). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2011). Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts through. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & McGraw, K. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on the endorsement of political leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 700–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2014). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr

    Google Scholar 

  • Vainio, A. (2011). Why are forest owners satisfied with forest policy decisions? Legitimacy, procedural justice, and perceived uncertainty. Social Justice Research, 24, 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Toorn, J., Napier, J. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). We the people: Intergroup interdependence breeds liberalism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 616–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Toorn, J., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 488–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, F., & Park, J. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oorschot, W. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, P. G. (2010). Individuals in movements: A social psychology of contention [reprint of 2007]. In P. G. Klandermans & C. M. Roggeband (Eds.), The handbook of social movements across disciplines (pp. 157–204). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2016). Procedural justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 219–236). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakslak, C., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B., Osborne, D., & Rudolph, U. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to poverty: The political ideology of the giver and the perceived morality of the receiver. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M. (2002). The impact of outcome orientation and justice concerns on tax compliance: The role of taxpayers’ identity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 629–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M. (2006). A letter from the tax office: Compliance effects of informational and interpersonal justice. Social Justice Research, 19, 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., & Bernerth, J. B. (2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 776–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C. (2001). Strategic collective action: Social psychology and social change. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Intergroup processes: Blackwell handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 409–430). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C., & Taylor, D. M. (1999). Success under tokenism: Co-option of the newcomer and the prevention of collective protest. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 369–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Koblenz-Landau, Fortstr. 7, Landau, 76829, Germany

    Tobias Rothmund

  2. University of Osnabrück, Neuer Graben, Osnabrück, 49074, Germany

    Julia C. Becker

  3. New York University, New York, NY, USA

    John T. Jost

Authors
  1. Tobias Rothmund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia C. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John T. Jost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Rothmund .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa Faculty of Education, Haifa, Israel

    Clara Sabbagh

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany

    Manfred Schmitt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rothmund, T., Becker, J.C., Jost, J.T. (2016). The Psychology of Social Justice in Political Thought and Action. In: Sabbagh, C., Schmitt, M. (eds) Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3215-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3216-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation