 Justice Perception and Allocation Rule Preferences: Does Social Disadvantage Matter?Lila Krishnan
Psychology and Developing Societies, 2001, vol. 13, issue 2, 193-219 Abstract: The present study compares disadvantaged group (DG) and non-disadvantaged group (NDG) subjects from rural India, with respect to their justice perception and alloca tion rule preferences. Overall, the differences between the two groups in their concep tualisation of justice, the extent of perceived justice in society, perceived injustice under violation of certain allocation rules and allocation rule preferences were found to be non-significant. Contrary to expectations, the recipient's caste and group mem bership per se were not found to be significant determinants in allocation rule prefer ence. Modifying earlier findings on rule preferences among Indians, the present study showed need, merit (effort), equality, and reciprocity preference in response to specific resource and situational variables. Perceived injustice under violations of certain allo cation rules deviated from the expected pattern of allocation rule preferences. The absence of the expected DG/NDG variations was explained on the basis of possible social desirability and the lack of felt disadvantage in the present sample. It was con cluded that social disadvantage probably matters in justice perception only when it is made salient and practically meaningful. Date: 2001 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:psydev:v:13:y:2001:i:2:p:193-219 DOI: 10.1177/097133360101300205 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Psychology and Developing Societies |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.