Search

Prior research has firmly established that consumers draw benefits from a firm's engagement in corporate social responsibility (CSR), especially the feeling of a "warm glow." These benefits positively affect several desirable outcomes, such as willingness to pay and customer loyalty. The authors propose that consumers do not blindly perceive benefits from a firm's CSR engagement but tend to suspect that a firm's prices include a markup to finance the CSR engagement. Taking customers' benefit perceptions and price markup inferences into account, the authors suggest that CSR engagement has mixed effects on consumers' evaluation of price fairness and, thus, on subsequent outcomes such as customer loyalty. The authors conduct one qualitative study and four quantitative studies leveraging longitudinal field and experimental data from more than 4,000 customers and show that customers indeed infer CSR price markups, entailing mixed effects of firms' CSR engagement on price fairness. The authors find that perception critically depends on customers' CSR attributions, and they explore the underlying psychological mechanisms. They propose communication strategies to optimize the effect of CSR engagement on perceived price fairness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the growing prevalence of products that allow people to improve themselves, there is limited research to date on how consumers perceive the use of these products. We introduce a theoretical framework that explains how consumers interpret the effects of such products and how they judge the fairness of their use. Five experiments show that consumers perceive the same enhancing products as embellishing users’ abilities to a greater extent when other people use them than when they themselves use them. This leads to an ethical double standard: consumers believe that it is less fair for others to use ability-boosting products than it is for themselves to do so. Consequently, encouraging consumers to consider who the ultimate users of such products will be can influence how they believe such products ought to be used and regulated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational justice researchers have demonstrated that employees are more committed to organizations they believe treat them fairly. Drawing on self-verification theory, five studies showed that the positive relationship between procedural justice and commitment was eliminated among those with low self-esteem. Moreover, results of one study showed that this effect occurred only when self-verification strivings were likely to be salient (i.e., when employees expected their relationships with their organization to be relatively enduring). Finally, an experiment provided evidence that participants' experience of self-verification (feeling known and understood) mediated the interactive effect of procedural justice and self-esteem on their organizational commitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I consider the interactive effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on people's reactions to organizational decisions. When the dependent variable consists of employees' support for decisions, for decision makers, or for organizations, outcome favorability has less influence when procedural fairness is high rather than low. When the dependent variable consists of employees' self-evaluations, however, outcome favorability has more influence when procedural fairness is high rather than low. Explanations, implications, and future research directions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This survey of employees at six large American companies asked the question: "What works and what hurts in corporate ethics/compliance management?" The study found that a values-based cultural approach to ethics/compliance management works best. Critical ingredients of this approach include leaders' commitment to ethics, fair treatment of employees, rewards for ethical conduct, concern for external stakeholders, and consistency between policies and actions. What hurts effectiveness most are an ethics/compliance program that employees believe exists only to protect top management from blame and an ethical culture that focuses on unquestioning obedience to authority and employee self-interest. The results of effective ethics/ compliance management are impressive. They include reduced unethical/illegal behavior in the organization, increased awareness of ethical issues, more ethical advice seeking within the firm, greater willingness to deliver bad news or report ethical/legal violations to management, better decision making because of the ethics/compliance program, and increased employee commitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the role of supplier fairness in developing long- term relationships between relatively smaller vulnerable resellers and larger, powerful suppliers. The authors conceptualize two components of fairness-distributive fairness, that is, the fairness of outcomes received by the reseller from carrying the supplier's line, and procedural fairness, the fairness of procedures and processes used by the supplier in relation to its resellers. Testing their hypotheses from the perspective of automobile dealers, the authors find strong evidence that vulnerable resellers' perceptions of both distributive and procedural fairness enhance their relationship quality, although these effects are moderated by the level of outcomes and environmental uncertainty. Furthermore, procedural fairness has relatively stronger effects on relationship quality than distributive fairness, which is a somewhat surprising result from a managerial perspective. The constructs and relationships among the constructs demonstrate cross-national stability across the two countries in the sample, the United States and the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Service fairness has been conceptualized as a major part of the foodservice industry due to the intangibility of foodservice, which is difficult to be evaluated by customers. Considering this challenge, this study investigates the impacts of perceived service fairness dimensions in encouraging brand citizenship behaviors (i.e. brand enthusiasm and brand endorsement) along with the mediating roles of brand trust and brand experience in the foodservice industry.Design/methodology/approach Based on an established framework of perceived service fairness, brand trust, brand experience and brand citizenship behavior, an exploratory conceptual model was formulated and empirically assessed. Survey data were collected from customers of casual dining franchise restaurants in Korea. Data analysis consisted of frequency analysis, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis and structural equation modeling.Findings The empirical results indicated that brand trust was significantly influenced by price, procedural, outcome and interactional fairness, while brand experience was significantly affected by price, outcome and interactional fairness. Additionally, brand trust and brand experience had positive influences on brand enthusiasm and brand endorsement, respectively.Practical implications A foodservice enterprise’s violation of customers’ fundamental need for fairness leads to negative outcomes, such as customers voicing the undesirable situation and/or leaving the restaurant. Thus, this study provides a strategy for maintaining service fairness to better develop brand relationships with customers in the restaurant industry.Originality/value There is a paucity of research on the effect of perceived service fairness on brand development in the restaurant industry. The findings provide greater insights into the impacts of perceived service fairness, brand trust and brand experience on customers’ brand citizenship behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is little recent research on women's adoption of rape avoidance behaviors, and there has been no known investigation into how adoption of these behaviors relates to various system justification beliefs or experiences of sexual objectification. We surveyed 294 U.S. women aged 18 to 40 to assess experiences of objectification, belief in a just world, gender-specific system justification, benevolent sexism, rape myth acceptance, and engagement in rape avoidance behaviors. Belief in a just world, gender-specific system justification, and benevolent sexism were conceptualized and analyzed as a 'system justification' latent factor due to similarities between constructs regarding how they influence worldview, particularly regarding fairness and relations between dominant and subordinate groups. Our hypothesized model had good fit to the data and illustrated that experiencing objectification was related to increased rape myth acceptance and system justification, which, in turn, were related to implementation of rape avoidance behaviors. Further, system justification was significantly positively related to rape myth acceptance. Results show the continued importance of understanding the role of objectification in the endorsement of rape myths and assessments of societal fairness, as well as how women's attitudes about society may ultimately affect their assessment of rape myths and their personal behavior. This research provides new information and groundwork for researchers developing rape education programming in addition to those interested in the complex relationship between women's experiences and behavioral outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ideal of equality of opportunity plays an important role in contemporary social and political discourse, and it is one of the few ideals which most people, across the political spectrum, accept. In this article, I argue that the seemingly widespread agreement about the value of equal opportunity is more apparent than real. I distinguish between relatively narrow principles of equal opportunity that focus on certain social, political, and legal benefits; the equal opportunity merit principle; and wide principles of equal opportunity that focus on any goods or benefits that impact the quality of a person’s life. In doing this, I aim to illuminate the intuitive and philosophical underpinnings that these approaches provide to equal opportunity and explore their various strengths, weaknesses, and implications. I also note that questions analogous to those raised about the value of equality can be raised about the value of equal opportunity. In particular, one might wonder whether one should care about opportunities from the perspective of an egalitarian; or from the perspective of a prioritarian, a sufficientarian, a utilitarian; or someone who feels compassion toward people lacking important opportunities. I suggest that there are, indeed, reasons of comparative fairness to be concerned about equal opportunities, but then note that the notion of equality is, itself, enormously complex, and that this complexity will be carried over into the notion of equal opportunity. I then consider possible connections between equal opportunity and education, noting that the different approaches to equal opportunity may have different implications regarding equal opportunity for education, equal opportunity in education, and equal opportunity through education. I conclude that equal opportunity is a complex notion, and that much work will need to be done to accurately understand its nature, scope, and implications, as well as how much weight the different approaches to equal opportunity should be given relative to each other, or other important ideals, for the purposes of social, political, and moral reasoning generally, or our thinking about education, in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the policy and methodological legacy of Equality of Educational Opportunity, the so-called Coleman Report published by the US Department of Education in 1966, is widely recognized, the way in which it played a role in shaping theorizing about equality of educational opportunity has been less well-explored. This article reconsiders the Coleman Report in light of how it has contributed to the framing of how we think about the very idea of equality of educational opportunity and its normative capacity to evaluate the education system. The main argument is that the Coleman Report helped to crystallize the concept of equality of educational opportunity as being fundamentally about how education provides ladders of opportunity and enables upward mobility for socially disadvantaged students. This framing has, however, created certain normative blind spots that have seriously impeded its ability to engage certain issues in education. The normative blind spot singled out, in particular, is the competitive structure of the current education system – the school system is structured so that some children win, while some lose. The competitive nature of schools has often been challenged, from a wide range of perspectives, but rarely utilizing an equality of opportunity framework. Given this normative blind spot, the more constructive dimension of the article is to advance an alternative theory of equality of educational opportunity that is better able to function as a regulative ideal for competition in the education system, one that identifies standards or principles of fairness to guide policy on how to deal fairly with winners and losers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses what the author refers to as the limitations of conventional criminal justice reform in America as of 2016, and it mentions the enforcement of marijuana laws in New York, New York, racially biased policing, wrongful convictions, and other U.S. criminal law-related issues. Mass incarceration is addressed, along with the racial and socioeconomic disparities in prison populations. The social aspects of fairness are examined, along with marijuana decriminalization in New York.

Family is an excellent potential arena to challenge gender norms and change power structures in society because of its pivotal role in socializing generations on gender and other axes of power and oppression. This commentary examines interdisciplinary feminist perspectives on family relationships and discusses the ways in which feminist scholarship challenges traditional approaches to family studies. Specifically, feminist researchers have challenged scholarship on families to: (a) redefine family by un-othering non-conforming families, (b) bring gender consciousness to family research, (c) model intersectionality across structural levels, and (d) apply research to radically alter family life to promote fairness and equity. Several barriers that have frustrated forward motion on some of these ideological battlegrounds are also discussed, including many structural aspects of currently favored epistemological approaches and scholarly traditions. Feminist researchers must continue to challenge the traditional approaches and conclusions of family scholarship, but we must also challenge some more subtle, structurally entrenched ideologies about the process of scholarship itself. This two pronged attack is critical to pull feminist family research from the fringes to center stage, where we can continue to demonstrate what a collective gain feminist approaches bring to our understanding of gender and the family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conduct a survey experiment to examine the effects of international compromise, war, and foreign government rhetoric on presidential approval. We find that, in certain conflicts, popular approval tracks fairness heuristics--leaders seeking to maximize voter approval prefer equitable divisions of disputed goods and are risk acceptant for divisions below this threshold. Moreover, aggressive rhetoric by a foreign leader increases domestic leaders' expected approval from war, decreases the value of compromise, and provides them with powerful incentives to fight harder. Thus, leaders motivated by popular approval have preferences that are inconsistent with the non-satiated, risk-averse preferences defined over shares of an objective good--that is, with those that much of the rationalist literature on conflict assumes. Fairness heuristics and the rhetorical framing of disputes during the conflict process may be at least as important as material factors in understanding why some disputes result in war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of literature documents the important role played by moral outrage or moral anger in stakeholders' reactions to cases of corporate social irresponsibility. Existing research focuses more on the consequences of moral outrage than a systematic analysis of how appraisals of irresponsible corporate behavior can lead to this emotional experience. In this paper, we develop and test, in two field studies, an extended model of moral outrage that identifies the cognitions that lead to, and are associated with, this emotional experience. This research contributes to the existing literature on reactions to corporate social irresponsibility by explaining how observers' evaluation of irresponsible corporate behavior leads to reactions of moral anger. The paper also helps clarify the difference between moral outrage and other types of anger and offers useful insights for managers who have to confront public outrage following cases of irresponsible corporate behavior. Finally, the analysis of the causes of stakeholders' anger at irresponsible corporations opens important avenues for future research that are presented in the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is impartiality possible or desirable within the conduct of political judgment? Many philosophers and democratic theorists have answered this question with a resounding "no." This article provides an affirmative answer to this question based upon the empirical study of deliberative democracy within "mini-publics." Through a reconstruction of the phenomenology of deliberative democracy within groups, this article offers an alternative conception of impartiality that can overcome many of the political and philosophical challenges that have been raised about this quality. "Deliberative impartiality" is a group-mediated orientation born from reflective civic collaborations within deliberative processes that prioritize free, equal, and inclusive communicative participation. This process-dependent form of mutually enacted deliberative impartiality differs from the individual, cognitive "standpoint" model of impartiality that still informs much of the theoretical literature, and it is for this same reason an intriguing and overlooked approach to impartiality that is worthy of empirical and theoretical consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measuring party support in Australia by constructing a 'two-party preferred' vote has had a profound effect, not only on the way political scientists, journalists, and politicians understand electoral 'swing' and predict electoral outcomes, but also on their understanding of the party system, their thinking about electoral fairness, and their views about which party or parties can legitimately claim government. This article traces the origins - the maternity as well as the paternity - of the 'two-party preferred'. It documents its spread from federal to state elections, even as voting systems in some states have switched from exhaustive preferential to optional preferential. It discusses its wide-ranging impact, and its implications for notions of electoral fairness and the legitimacy of election outcomes. It evaluates various criticisms of the concept - technical, pragmatic, and conceptual. And it notes the implications for marginal seat campaigning of the commonly observed 'uniform swing'- implications completely at odds with the idea that marginal seats matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational justice is an important determinant of workplace attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. However, understanding workplace fairness requires not only examining what happens but also when it happens, in terms of justice events, perceptions, and reactions. We organize and discuss findings from 194 justice articles with temporal aspects, selected from over a thousand empirical justice articles. By examining temporal aspects, our findings enrich and sometimes challenge the answers to three key questions in the organizational justice literature relating to (i) when individuals pay attention to fairness, including specific facets, (ii) how fairness judgments form and evolve, and (iii) how reactions to perceived (in)justice unfold. Our review identifies promising avenues for empirical work and emphasizes the importance of developing temporal theories of justice. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As corruption affects people in all walks of life, public reactions to corruption and citizens' views of the government's anti-corruption effort are critically important. Any government seeking to make effective policy against corruption must obtain public trust and support, which provides the much-needed legitimacy for policy enforcement. In this study, we drew on a survey of 1,604 randomly selected residents in Shanghai in 2008 to examine the perceptions and attitudes of Chinese citizens towards the government's anti-corruption effort. Specifically, we focussed on the 'sense of anticorruption efficacy,' defined as people's expectation for positive anti-corruption outcomes. We addressed two questions. To what extent the public was confident in the government's anti-corruption efficacy? What factors explained the variation in people's perceptions of anti-corruption efficacy? Results indicated that two salient factors could affect an individual's sense of anti-corruption efficacy. First, as corruption contributed to social disparity, the perceived unfairness of income distribution exacerbated people's expectation for anti-corruption efficacy. Secondly, an accepting attitude towards power intrusion into income distribution diluted the positive impact of the perception of unfair distribution on people's expectation for anti-corruption efficacy. We take from the results that to what extent people expect the government to make effective effort to control corruption is determined by both economic and political factors. People develop high expectation for anti-corruption reform when they are unhappy not only with the lack of fairness in income distribution but also with the intrusion of political power into economic affairs which, if unconstrained, often gives rise to corruption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes to evaluate tax reforms by aggregating money metric losses and gains of different individuals using 'generalized social marginal welfare weights.' Optimum tax formulas take the same form as standard welfarist tax formulas by simply substituting standard marginal social welfare weights with those generalized weights. Weights directly capture society's concerns for fairness without being necessarily tied to individual utilities. Suitable weights can help reconcile discrepancies between the welfarist approach and actual tax practice, as well as unify in an operational way the most prominent alternatives to utilitarianism such as Libertarianism, equality of opportunity, or poverty alleviation. (JEL D60, D63, H21, H23, I38) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research describes how race-ethnicity, nativity and neighbourhood characteristics are associated with reports of unfair treatment by police in the previous five years by residentially stable men. Data are from waves 1 and 2 of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey. Results suggest that foreign-born Latinos are less likely than African Americans and US-born whites to report unfair treatment. After accounting for tract percentage Latino, US-born Latinos were less likely to report unfair treatment than African Americans, which partially supports a gradient model. Neighbourhood affluence was negatively associated with reports, but poverty, percentage Latino and immigrant concentration were not. The importance of neighbourhood privilege is highlighted, as is the need to better understand Latino immigrants' experiences with police. Future work should examine immigrants' interpretation of interactions with police and their willingness to report unfair treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Communicators try to shape public opinion to their advantage by invoking social values. We examine a vivid example of this value framing in the debate over teaching evolution in the public schools. Supporters of intelligent design (ID) theory have pressed for greater acceptance in public schools by framing the issue as a question of fairness. A survey experiment revealed overwhelming agreement that including ID in science class is fairer than excluding it. This belief had a greater impact on tolerance for ID when the issue was framed with respect to fairness. A second study showed similar effects from a pro-ID documentary film. A final study showed that training in scientific reasoning counteracts the impact of the fairness value, thereby decreasing tolerance for ID. Combined, these studies show how political debate can be understood as a contest over which values deserve greatest consideration or emphasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented which provides the author's observations about the practice of nondomestic actors giving advice on constitution-making to the domestic actors who are engaged in the constitution creation process, and it mentions best practices and the political aspects of constitutional advice giving. Impartiality and local politics are examined, along with the development of domestic constitutions in Southeast Asian nations. The impacts of crises on constitution-making are assessed.

Studies focusing on black–Latino intergroup perceptions in zero-sum environments (e.g., jobs) have found little perceived outgroup discrimination or a tendency for each group to perceive the injustices faced by the other group. In contrast, we examine the non-zero-sum criminal justice domain. Although we find some asymmetry—that is, blacks are somewhat more likely to see discrimination toward Latinos than vice-versa, we mainly find both groups acknowledge the discrimination faced by the other disadvantaged group, especially those who feel closely linked to the fate of their own group. Under such circumstances, blacks and Latinos recognize a common sense of deprivation and discrimination and are likely to regard the other group as facing comparable victimization, potentially seeing the other group as a coalition partner for remediating mutual concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Classical” or “Dunantist” humanitarianism has traditionally been constructed around the core principles of neutrality (not taking sides) and impartiality (provision of assistance with no regard to ethnicity, religion, race or any other consideration, and proportional to need), plus the operational imperative (rather than a formal principle) to seek the consent of the belligerent parties. These principles, whilst never unchallenged, have dominated the contemporary discourse of humanitarianism and have been synonymous with or at least reflections of a presumed essential, enduring and universal set of humanitarian values. This paper offers a more dynamic and changing vision of the content of humanitarian action. It maps the origins and content of the “new humanitarian” critique of the humanitarian sector and principles and argues that this has both misrepresented the ethical content of neutrality and obscured what amount to significant operational adaptations that leave traditional humanitarianism well prepared for the contemporary operating environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the legal nature of the principles of impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian action, focusing on States as humanitarian actors. It argues that international law does not provide a general legal basis for the universal applicability of these principles, contrary to a common interpretation of the International Court of Justice's 1986 judgment in the Nicaragua case. Nevertheless, impartiality and neutrality may have a significant legal effect on the conduct of States. They may be directly binding on States through the operation of Security Council resolutions drafted in mandatory language. In addition, they may have indirect effect due to the States’ obligation to respect humanitarian organizations’ adherence to the principles. On the basis of this argument, the article pleads for increased conceptual clarity and, in turn, effectiveness of humanitarian action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study of a network of evangelical churches in Lebanon, based on data collected during an evaluation in 2014, presents a critique of common understandings about the humanitarian principle of impartiality, and questions assumptions about the compatibility between religious fervour and humanitarian values. Churches attempting to respect impartiality while implementing a food aid project for Syrian refugees have sought to mitigate potential problems through relationship-building and promotion of human dignity in order to ensure needs-responsiveness. Though many Lebanese Evangelical Christians do continue to engage in evangelistic activity, they benefit from strong community ties and demonstrate a high level of sensitivity to their beneficiaries' urgent needs as well as their sense of dignity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that much of the work on democratization and democratic consolidation is obscured by a conceptual fog, when at the very least some of this confusion could be ameliorated by parsing out components that are obviously liberal in nature. An admission of the importance of liberalization and liberal consolidation as distinctly different in form and measurement from democratization and democratic consolidation are the first steps to better research on the varieties of causation that constitute and propel the dissolution of more authoritarian regimes towards more liberal democratic regimes. Acknowledging that theliberalin liberal democracy is unpopular for some, and that liberal democracy does not necessarily meanAmericanliberal democracy, go a long way to freeing these terms from ethnocentric misconceptions, as well as cementing analytical clarification. Though all modern democracies have both liberal and democratic components, democratic consolidation does not guarantee liberal consolidation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Despite widespread media attention, research efforts, and political support, there is relatively little known about how individuals who are employed in the criminal justice system perceive the fairness, efficacy, and scope of policies aimed at sex offenders. The present study considers the attitudes and beliefs toward sex offenders and sex offender laws, including registration, community notification, and residency restrictions, held by a diverse sample of criminal justice officials who represent all three major components of the criminal justice system. Findings reveal that variation exists among types of criminal justice officials with respect to their perspectives on sex offenders, and most criminal justice officials endorse the implementation and enforcement of current sex offender laws, despite having doubts about their efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Anthropologists have documented substantial cross-society variation in people's willingness to treat strangers with impartial, universal norms versus favoring members of their local community. Researchers have proposed several adaptive accounts for these differences. One variant of the pathogen stress hypothesis predicts that people will be more likely to favor local in-group members when they are under greater infectious disease threat. The material security hypothesis instead proposes that institutions that permit people to meet their basic needs through impartial interactions with strangers reinforce a tendency toward impartiality, whereas people lacking such institutions must rely on local community members to meet their basic needs. Some studies have examined these hypotheses using self-reported preferences, but not with behavioral measures. We conducted behavioral experiments in eight diverse societies that measure individuals' willingness to favor in-group members by ignoring an impartial rule. Consistent with the material security hypothesis, members of societies enjoying better-quality government services and food security show a stronger preference for following an impartial rule over investing in their local in-group. Our data show no support for the pathogen stress hypothesis as applied to favoring in-groups and instead suggest that favoring in-group members more closely reflects a general adaptive fit with social institutions that have arisen in each society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social hierarchy exists in almost all social species and affects everything from resource allocation to the development of intelligence. Previous studies showed that status within a social hierarchy influences the perceived fairness of income allocation. However, the effect of one's social status on economic decisions is far from clear, as are the neural processes underlying these decisions. In this study, we dynamically manipulated participants' social status and analyzed their behavior as recipients in the ultimatum game (UG), during which event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. Behavioral results showed that acceptance rates for offers increased with the fairness level of offers. Importantly, participants were less likely to accept unfair offers when they were endowed with high status than with low status. In addition, cues indicating low status elicited a more positive P2 than cues indicating high status in an earlier time window (170-240 ms), and cues indicating high status elicited a more negative N400 than cues indicating low status in a later time window (350-520 ms). During the actual reception of offers, the late positivity potential (LPP, 400-700 ms) for unfair offers was more positive in the high status condition than in the low status condition, suggesting a decreased arousal for unfair offers during low status. These findings suggest a strong role of social status in modulating individual behavioral and neural responses to fairness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the moderating roles of self-esteem level and self-esteem instability in the relationship between perceived unfair treatment and depressive mood. Based on the assumption that unfairness is a threat to one's social standing and self-esteem, the authors proposed that individuals with highly fragile self-esteem (i.e., the combination of unstable and high self-esteem) react more strongly when experiencing unfair treatment. This hypothesis was tested in a real-world setting using cross-sectional and diary data of 101 employees. As expected, unfair treatment was related to depressive mood among individuals with unstable high self-esteem but not among individuals with stable high self-esteem. This pattern of results held for both cross-sectional and diary data. In contrast, unfairness was not related to depressive mood among individuals with unstable low self-esteem. Keywords: self-esteem; self-esteem instability; fairness; depressive mood

The methods of assessing the fairness of supervisors and organizations among employees are explored. The organization's attributes, the affective state of employees, and social information are used by employees to assess the fairness of supervisors and organizations.

The authors assessed the impact that social value orientations--prosocial (i.e., concerned about outcomes for both oneself and others) versus proself (i.e., concerned about one's own outcome only)--had on fairness judgments in a non-negotiation setting. The results indicated that prosocials generally formed fairness judgments in a manner suggested by equity theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw an equal outcome as fairer than a favorable or unfavorable outcome. The fairness determinations of proselfs, however, tended to follow the tenets of self-interest theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw a favorable outcome as fairer than an unfavorable outcome. Contrary to self-interest theory, proselfs did not find a favorable outcome fairer than an equal outcome. These findings indicate that social value orientations differentially affect the evaluation of outcome information in the formation of fairness judgments. Keywords: equity theory, outcome fairness, procedural fairness, self-interest theory, social value orientations, HOW DO PEOPLE DETERMINE THE FAIRNESS of an event? Two factors that may be considered in forming fairness judgments are the outcome received and the procedures used to arrive at [...]

It is proposed that fairness of procedures for performance evaluation influences job satisfaction through distributive fairness and trust in superior and organizational commitment. A sample of 110 managers reveal that non-outcome-based process have a stronger effect than outcome-based process.

Safety experts contend that to make incident reporting work, healthcare organizations must establish a 'just' culture- that is, an organizational context in which health professionals feel assured that they will receive fair treatment when they report safety incidents. Although healthcare leaders have expressed keen interest in establishing a just culture in their institutions, the patient safety literature offers little guidance as to what the term 'just culture' really means or how one goes about creating a just culture. Moreover, the safety literature does not indicate what constitutes a just incident reporting process in the eyes of the health professionals who provide direct patient care. This gap is unfortunate, for knowing what constitutes a just incident reporting process in the eyes of front-line health professionals is essential for designing useful information systems to detect, monitor, and correct safety problems. In this article, we seek to clarify the conceptual meaning of just culture and identify the attributes of incident reporting processes that make such systems just in the eyes of health professionals. To accomplish these aims, we draw upon organizational justice theory and research to develop a conceptual model of perceived justice in incident reporting processes. This model could assist those healthcare leaders interested in creating a just culture by clarifying the multiple meanings, antecedents, and consequences of justice. Keywords: Patient safety; Just culture; Incident reporting; Organizational justice

If the object of developing and developed world leaders is to uplift their peoples continually, then it is essential to measure approximations of actual service deliveries (what we ought to mean by 'governance'), not to rate nations impressionistically according to the perceived quality of their operations, their perceived impartiality (as per Rothstein), the extent of their bureaucratic autonomy (as per Fukuyama and others), or their capacity to coax or coerce citizens. Only in that positive manner can we distinguish the governments that are producing abundant political goods (i.e., good governance) from those that no longer are, or never did. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I argue that the principle of fairness can license both a duty of fair play, which is used to ground a moral duty to obey the law in just or nearly just societies, and a duty of resistance to unfair and unjust social schemes. The first part of the paper analyzes fairness' demands on participants in mutually beneficial schemes of coordination, and its implications in the face of injustice. Not only fairness does not require complying with unfair and unjust social schemes, but it also prohibits benefiting from such schemes. I use the case of racial segregation in the U.S. to illustrate this latter argument, and consider some objections to my investigation, given the availability and straightforwardness of justice. The second part of the paper elaborates the argument for the duty to resist. The Radical Reform argument first establishes, by elimination of the alternatives (exit and restitution), that the principal way for citizens to cease benefiting from an unfair and unjust social scheme is to radically reform it. The Resistance Argument then shows that resistance is crucial to bring about reform, so that one ought to resist unfair and unjust schemes from which one benefits. Next, I offer two arguments for collective resistance and political solidarity, one based on empirical considerations and the other based on fairness. Finally, I consider the costs of the resistance efforts which fairness may require. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court recently revisited the doctrine of specific personal jurisdiction for the first time in decades in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, which resulted in a fractured opinion, a flurry of critical scholarship, and uncertainty on the lower courts. This Note argues that the principal significance of Nicastro lies in the sensitivity of the Breyer concurrence to the problems modernity poses for jurisdictional doctrine and its concomitant willingness to reevaluate the doctrine. Lower courts and litigants should see the case as an invitation to address such "modern concerns" in jurisdictional analysis within the bounds implied by Justice Breyer. This Note proposes that the jurisdictional problem of an interconnected globalized economy is the same as that posed by the Internet--the novel and increasingly pervasive fact of nonspecific purposeful availment of transjurisdictional contacts--and that such contemporary circumstances necessarily erode the utility of minimum contacts analysis as a consistent and fair limitation on personal jurisdiction, such that a more robust implementation of fairness balancing must become the engine of the doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the ethical principle of equality of opportunity, this paper presents a measure of the welfare loss that is caused by an unfair distribution of a particular outcome (income, health, education, etc). The key idea is that a fair society should produce outcomes that depend on individuals' effort and not on their external circumstances such as gender, socioeconomic background, etc. We propose measuring inequality of opportunity as the welfare loss attributed to the outcome differences among individuals who exert a similar level of effort. Our results are in line with those aspects of fairness literature that give priority to the ex post compensation approach to equality of opportunity. Finally, we present an empirical application for the measurement of the welfare loss in the income distribution in Europe. We have observed a high degree of heterogeneity among European countries. The welfare loss due to inequality of opportunity ranges in those, from basically zero to almost one fifth of their potential welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is it ever fair to limit treatment for diseases like glioblastoma for which prognosis is poor? Because resources are finite and health care spending limits the other possible uses for those resources, limiting access to an intervention that does not generate benefits is ethically sound. Ignoring the balance of benefits and burdens associated with treatment ignores opportunity costs and leads us to treat some lives as more valuable than others. Although it is ethically sound to set limits on medical care, I argue that biological age is a poor criterion for allocating resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Voters in twenty-four states may propose and enact legislation without any involvement from representative branches of government. In recent decades, voters have used popular lawmaking to eliminate groups' liberty and property interests on topics such as marriage, education, public benefits, and taxes. This Article contends that these deprivations undermine principles historically associated with procedural due process, thus raising serious questions about the constitutionality of initiatives that eliminate groups' protected interests. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause embodies principles of fairness that include deliberation, dignity, and equality. The historical salience of these principles is evidenced in colonial charters and state constitutions, the Federalist Papers, antebellum cases interpreting state due process clauses, antebellum cases governing popular lawmaking, and legislative debates leading up to the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification. These principles should inform the doctrine's approach to defining procedural fairness. When deprivation of liberty or property is at stake, the republican system of representative government protects these principles of fairness better than most contemporary plebiscites. Indeed, in a series of vastly understudied cases in the decade leading up to the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification, at least eight state courts expressed normative doubts about popular lawmaking. While these cases were not premised on due process clauses, these courts nonetheless invoked principles associated with due process and republicanism when questioning popular lawmaking, providing some evidence of the dominant understanding of these terms during that era. What is more, the requirement of due process of law, at a minimum, prohibits deprivations of liberty or property that violate other constitutional provisions. There is an enduring debate about whether the initiative process violates the non-justiciable Republican Form Clause. This Article seeks in part to inform that debate. And if, in fact, the initiative process violates the nonjusticiable Republican Form Clause, initiatives that deprive individuals of liberty or property violate the justiciable Due Process Clause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are riddled with policy oversights. In United States v. Kimbrough, the Supreme Court permitted district courts to vary from the Guidelines based on categorical policy disagreements. Yet, although district courts often vary from the Guidelines for individualized reasons, the policy variance power has been underutilized. This Note provides a case study of the history of one obscure Guideline, section 2M5.1, as applied to one particular type of case, a non-military-related embargo violation. The case study exposes the United States Sentencing Commission's systemic oversights in the history of creating Guideline section 2M5.1 and demonstrates how lawyers and judges can rely on that history on a case-by-case basis to expose categorical problems with Guidelines policy. Employing such a categorical policy approach to supplement an individualized approach promotes fairness, transparency, and feedback for future refinement of the Guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on how citizens’ satisfaction with democracy is affected by system factors related to the input side of the democratic system, i.e. the electoral dimension, as well as to factors related to the output side, i.e. the quality of government. The study investigates the extent to which different election system characteristics and degrees of policy representation (in terms of ideological congruence between voters and representatives) and the presence of effective, professional and impartial governmental institutions are related to citizens’ satisfaction with the way democracy works. The study uses data from CSES on individual voters and party system characteristics together with data on governmental institutions from the QoG Institute. Overall, the results indicate that factors such as government effectiveness are of greater importance for citizens’ satisfaction with the way democracy functions, compared to factors like ideological congruence on the input side. Impartial and effective bureaucracies matter more than representational devices. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This Article focuses on a conflict at the core of federal class action law between an "internal" and an "external" view of the class. The internal view sees the class as a device constructed by the judge to achieve the functional goals of Rule 23. The external view sees the class as a group with a unity existing prior to the certification decision. The conflict is connected at a deeper level to competing normative models of the class action. The outcomebased model, linked with the internal view, focuses on the benefits of class litigation for outcome quality and assumes that good outcomes go a long way toward satisfying due process values. The process-based model, linked with the external view, focuses on litigant autonomy, requires clear and strong outcome quality gains to justify class treatment, and confines the class action to classes with sufficient group cohesion to support the legitimacy of representative adjudication. While these two views have both contributed to the shape of modern class action law, the external view has gained considerable ground over the past fifteen years. This Article first traces the two views through class action history and describes the growing influence of an externally defined "cohesive class" requirement. The Article then examines the normative case for the external view and the process-based model and finds it seriously wanting. Two conclusions emerge from this analysis. First, if we are to make progress with the class action, the debates must be informed by a more rigorous account of due process and adjudicative legitimacy. Second, problems with the class action should be confronted directly rather than addressed indirectly through a cohesiveness requirement that sends courts on a hopeless, misguided search for class unity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most often cited precepts at class certification hearings--when courts hold such hearings--is that the rules of evidence do not apply. Since 1966, virtually every federal and state judge has fallen back on this trope to wave off objections to materials offered by counsel during class certification hearings. Class certification hearings, then, often resemble some sort of Kabuki theatre, where, upon an offer of proof, the opposing party rises to object to the materials on evidentiary grounds, only to be rebuffed by the judge's invocation of the "no rules of evidence apply" mantra. In light of the evolving rigorous analysis standard for class certification and the increased use of evidentiary hearings, courts ought to recognize that rules of evidence should be applied at class certification hearings. Under current practice, we have evidentiary hearings without reference to the rules of evidence. Although compelling arguments may be marshaled against imposing such a requirement, imposing evidentiary rules at class certification is the logical extension of importing the Daubert gatekeeping function into the certification process. The trend over two decades has been to make the class certification process a more serious affair, against the backdrop of the consequences of the class certification decision, which usually impels defendants to settle the case rather than to continue litigation. Imposing evidentiary rules at class certification will enhance professional responsibility on class certification motions. Additionally, imposing evidentiary rules, on balance, most likely will not increase expense or delay because litigants already undertake precertification discovery. Evidentiary standards at class certification simply will require class action attorneys to clean up their acts. In addition, requiring evidentiary rules will enhance judicial functions and responsibilities by inducing judges to make deliberative decisions in the shadow of possible appellate reversal for reliance on inadmissible materials. In the end, a class certification framework that imports evidentiary rules into the certification process will enhance the sense of justice and fairness in class certification decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a panel discussion discussing the implications of campaign contributions in state supreme court elections in the U.S. Topics include the state judicial selection process in the U.S., the problem of systemic bias, and the impact of partisanship on judicial elections. Information is provided on the impartiality of judges in the U.S.

The due process rights of suspected terrorists have played a major role in the debate about how best to engage terrorist entities after September 11, 2001. Does citizenship or immigration status have a bearing on the treatment of terrorists? Does location within or outside the United States matter? This Article explores the connection between citizenship and alienage, enemy status, allegiance, and due process rights against a backdrop of international law. It surveys the application of due process to citizens and aliens based on the location of misconduct within or outside the territory of the United States and notes the expansion of criminal law to cover ever more extraterritorial conduct, including that of noncitizens who otherwise have no connection to the United States. It concludes by suggesting that the fairness of a particular exercise of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction might be determined by looking at the nature of the obligation that a defendant owes to the state based on international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

WTO law does not require its direct effect in domestic legal orders. Whilst the stances taken in these are diverse, showing that direct effect is not denied on the whole to WTO law, all the major trading members of the WTO deny it. The fact that, in a case where a WTO member does not comply and is targeted by trade sanctions, the economic actors who in practice bear the burden of these sanctions are deprived of any recourse, may be considered unfair enough to question again the denial of direct effect. The analysis focuses notably on the EU where the debate has expanded more than anywhere else and concludes that direct effect should, even in the name of fairness or justice, be handled with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]