Explaining Choices in Procedural and Distributive Justice Across Cultures

Abstract A previous study (Leung, Bond, & Schwartz, 1990) established that an expectancy-valence model could be used effectively to explain behavioun in three social domains both within and across cultures. In this study the model was applied to the domains of resource allocation and conflict resolution in order to pinpoint which expectancies and which valences were carrying the explanatory weight of the respondents' behavioural strategies. For both Israeli and Hong Kong students the expectancies and, less strongly, the valences tapping harmony and performance quality were important for resource allocation; those tapping animosity reduction and process control, for conflict resolution. Suggestions were offered for broadening the net of explanatory constructs for future work aimed at specifymg subjective factors associated with justice-related behaviours.

[1]  M. Deutsch.  Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice? , 1975 .

[2]  Stuart S. Nagel,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[3]  B. Whiting,et al.  A. The problem of the packaged variable , 1976 .

[4]  M. Deutsch,et al.  Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. , 1976 .

[5]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. , 1977 .

[6]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[7]  M. Bond,et al.  How Does Cultural Collectivism Operate? , 1982 .

[8]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. , 1982 .

[9]  J. E. Maddux,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Health Enhancement: Investigation of a Combined Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy Model , 1986 .

[10]  Cal D. Stoltenberg,et al.  Self-efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome value: Relative effects on behavioral intentions. , 1986 .

[11]  Hun-Joon Park,et al.  Effects of interactional goal on choice of allocation rule: A cross-national study , 1986 .

[12]  L. Clark.  Mutual relevance of mainstream and cross-cultural psychology. , 1987, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[13]  K. Leung.  Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. , 1987 .

[14]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[15]  M. Bond,et al.  Effects of cultural femininity on preference for methods of conflict processing: A cross-cultural study , 1990 .

[16]  M. Bond,et al.  Upward and downward influence tactics in managerial networks: A comparative study of Hong Kong Chinese and Americans , 1991 .

[17]  J. Fernández-Dols,et al.  Preference for Methods of Conflict Processing in Two Collectivist Cultures , 1992 .

[18]  S. Schwartz.  Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries , 1992 .