Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2018
-
(2018): Normative expectations about fairness. The development of a charity norm in preschoolers. In: Journal of experimental child psychology 165, S. 66-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.016
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28477951 Abstract: This study investigated preschool children's normative expectations about the fair distribution of resources. We examined whether preschool children have a norm of charity, that is, a norm to give more to poor individuals than to wealthy individuals. To this end, we presented 3- to 6-year-olds (N=81) with two different resource allocation situations. In one situation, an agent complied with a norm of charity by allocating more resources to a poor recipient than to a rich recipient. In the other situation, a different agent violated the norm by allocating more resources to a wealthy recipient. We assessed (a) children's verbal protest and affirmation during the resource allocation situations, (b) their punishing and rewarding behavior toward the agents, and (c) their evaluations of the agents' behavior. The results show that older (5- and 6-year-old) preschool children enforced norm-compliant behavior and protested against the norm violation of the protagonist who gave more items to the wealthy recipient, but this was not the case in younger preschool children. These findings demonstrate that older preschool children consider charity as a norm and enforce this norm toward third parties.
Keywords: Child, Child Behavior/psychology, Child, Preschool, Entstehung von Normen, Entwicklungspsychologie, Fairness, Female, Gerechtigkeit, Gerechtigkeit in Bezug auf demographische Observablen, Gleichverteilung, Humans, Male, Moral Development, Normenwandel, Psychology, Child, Punishment, Resource Allocation, Reward, Social Justice/psychology, Social Norms, Werte 2017
-
(2017): Fairness and family background. In: Politics, Philosophy & Economics 16 (2), S. 117-131. DOI: 10.1177/1470594X15618966
Abstract: Fairness preferences fundamentally affect individual behavior and play an important role in shaping social and political institutions. However, people differ both with respect to what they view as fair and with respect to how much weight they attach to fairness considerations. In this article, we study the role of family background in explaining these heterogeneities in fairness preferences. In particular, we examine how socioeconomic background relates to fairness views and to how people make trade-offs between fairness and self-interest. To study this, we conducted an economic experiment with a representative sample of 14- to 15-year-old and matched the experimental data to administrative data on parental income and education. The participants made two distributive choices in the experiment. The first choice was to distribute money between themselves and another participant in a situation where there was no difference in merit. The second choice was to distribute money between two other participants with unequal merits. Our main finding is that there is a systematic difference in fairness view between children from low-socioceconomic status (SES) families and the rest of the participants; more than 50 percent of the participants from low-SES families are egalitarians, whereas only about 20 percent in the rest of the sample hold this fairness view. In contrast, we find no significant difference in the weight attached to fairness between children from different socioeconomic groups.
-
(2017): Treating Broome Fairly. In: Utilitas 29 (02), S. 214-238. DOI: 10.1017/S0953820816000303
Abstract: John Broome has developed an elegant and powerful theory of fairness. It is important to lay out his theory afresh because the basic structure of Broome's theory has been generally misunderstood. Once we understand its general structure, we are in a better position to assess what its normative implications are. In discussing objections that have been raised against Broome's theory, I will show that these implications are different from what his critics have commonly assumed.
2016
-
(2016): Rawlsian altruism with perfect discrimination leads to social efficiency. In: The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 40 (1), S. 53-69. DOI: 10.1080/0022250X.2015.1118098
Abstract: Recent studies draw attention on the highly specialized capacity of human beings in recognizing altruists versus cheaters in social interactions. These results hint at the existence of specialized abilities that support discriminating behavior in strategic interactions. In this paper, we explore the implications of discriminating behavior in the study of the indirect evolutionary selection of selfish versus altruistic motivations in the context of generic 2x2 base games, and in particular for coordination and cooperation scenarios. We find that inequality averse (Rawlsian) altruism can enforce under rather general conditions socially optimal outcomes, including cases where selfishness cannot, such as in prisoner's dilemmas. Inequality seeking (Nietzschian) altruism in no case improves upon Rawlsian altruism in terms of social optimality of outcomes, and often does worse. In the cooperation scenario in particular, Nietzschean altruism never manages to implement the cooperative outcome. Under perfect discrimination, moreover, inequality averse (Rawlsian) altruism often evolves at the expense of selfishness. These results suggest that the development of sophisticated discrimination abilities may be strongly adaptive in supporting fairness-oriented forms of pro-sociality in humans in the context of social dilemmas and coordination problems.
2014
-
(2014): One Justice or Two?. A Model of Reconciliation of Normative Justice Theories and Empirical Research on Organizational Justice. In: Journal of Business Ethics 124 (3), S. 435-451. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1881-1
Abstract: Management scholars and social scientists investigate dynamics of subjective fairness perceptions in the workplace under the umbrella term "organizational justice." Philosophers and ethicists, on the other hand, think of justice as a normative requirement in societal relationships with conflicting interests. Both ways of looking at justice have neither remained fully separated nor been clearly integrated. It seems that much could be gained and learned by more closely integrating the ethical and the empirical fields of justice. On the other hand, it may simply not be possible to bridge the divide between the subjective empirical and the normative prescriptive justice as both fields pose different questions and rely on different assumptions and methods. In this paper, we propose a "reconciliation" model, as a third way of considering justice in the workplace, taking into account normative and psychological issues pertaining to justice. Through applying a reconciliation model, we provide a new way of looking at the interconnections between justice philosophy and organizational justice that could advance future research in both fields. Our model also implies that justice researchers can and should be concerned with the moral implications of their own subject of research.
2009
-
(2009): Exploring the “Lost and Found” of Justice Theory and Research. In: Social Justice Research 22 (1), S. 98-116. DOI: 10.1007/s11211-009-0089-0
Abstract: Scientific interest in the nature of how people think about justice and fairness began approximately 70 years ago with Stouffer's classic study on the American soldier. Since then there have been numerous theoretical frameworks and thousands of research studies conducted on what people perceive as fair and the consequences of making a fairness judgment. The goal of this article is to dig through the "lost and found" box of justice research in an attempt to re-examine where we have been, issues and ideas we may have forgotten, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future. The key rediscovery of this review is that perspective matters. Specifically, how people interpret fairness depends critically on whether they are viewing a situation in terms of their material, social, or moral needs and goals. The implications of adopting a contingent theory of how people reason about fairness are discussed.
2003
-
(2003): Cultural Insights to Justice: A Theoretical Perspective Through a Subjective Lens. In: Journal of Business Ethics 46 (2), S. 187-199
Abstract: Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice are constructs that are increasingly being recognized as important factors that affect individual perceptions in the workplace environment. This paper presents a theoretical perspective that suggests that justice is perceived through a subjective lens that consists of individualized beliefs and proposes that cultural attributes and demographic characteristics play an integral part in determining the perception of justice. The distinctions between these three constructs are presented in context with the core beliefs of individual employees – affected by a multitude of perceptual and demographic factors that we briefly identify herein. Based on the theoretical perspective, an instrument that measures the constructs of justice as perceived by individuals was developed. With a focus on justice within the business setting, hypotheses about attitudes related to justice were tested. Survey results confirm that the three constructs of justice are distinct but correlated. Significant differences were found in the perceptions of African-American respondents with regard to procedural justice. Although the empirical findings do not support all the hypotheses, this research highlights the need for further development of measures to assess the perception of justice in business settings and at an applied level, underscores the importance of recognizing cultural attributes and demographic characteristics in understanding how justice is perceived.
- <<
- <
- 1