Suchergebnisse

This interdisciplinary and cross-national volume brings together theory and research by prominent scholars within the areas of distributive and procedural justice, not only featuring work within each area separately, as is commonly done, but also showing how combinations of the two justice orientations might operate to affect justice judgments and guide behaviour. Chapters cover various levels of analysis, from intra-personal to interpersonal to group and societal levels. The volume is divided into four sections: distributive justice, procedural justice, distributive and procedural justice, and methodological issues. Each section is subdivided into two parts, basic research and applied research re: current and important societal issues. Each chapter contains an overview of theoretical and empirical research on a particular topic. The volume is designed for use on courses in social psychology, psychology, sociology, political philosophy, and law.

The present study shows that categorization of reward recipients into different entities affects distributive preferences by third-party non-recipient allocators. Rewards were allocated more equally to members of one group than to members of two dyads or to independent recipients. Moreover, allocators who were explicitly requested to allocate rewards justly were more egalitarian than those who were not requested to do so. More interestingly, rewards were allocated more equally between members in each of two dyads and between independent recipients, when a just allocation request was made, than when such a request was not made. This implies that a request for just allocation modifies the effects of recipient entity categorization toward more equal reward allocations.

This edited text complements and deepens Uriel G. Foa's and Edna B. Foa's 1974 presentations of resource theory of social exchange by expanding on the original roots and subsequent refinements and developments of Social Resource Theory (SRT). With its contemporary overview of the theoretical extensions of social resource theory and related empirical research, 'Social Behavior as Resource Exchange' offers far-reaching societal implications for most behavioral and social science disciplines.

Background Societies are facing medical resource scarcities, inter alia due to increased life expectancy and limited health budgets and also due to temporal or continuous physical shortages of resources like donor organs. This makes it challenging to meet the medical needs of all. Ethicists provide normative guidance for how to fairly allocate scarce medical resources, but legitimate decisions require additionally information regarding what the general public considers to be fair. The purpose of this study was to explore how lay people, general practitioners, medical students and other health professionals evaluate the fairness of ten allocation principles for scarce medical resources: 'sickest first', 'waiting list', 'prognosis', 'behaviour' (i.e., those who engage in risky behaviour should not be prioritized), 'instrumental value' (e.g., health care workers should be favoured during epidemics), 'combination of criteria' (i.e., a sequence of the 'youngest first', 'prognosis', and 'lottery' principles), 'reciprocity' (i.e., those who provided services to the society in the past should be rewarded), 'youngest first', 'lottery', and 'monetary contribution'. Methods 1,267 respondents to an online questionnaire were confronted with hypothetical situations of scarcity regarding (i) donor organs, (ii) hospital beds during an epidemic, and (iii) joint replacements. Nine allocation principles were evaluated in terms of fairness for each type of scarcity along 7-point Likert scales. The relationship between demographic factors (gender, age, religiosity, political orientation, and health status) and fairness evaluations was modelled with logistic regression. Results Medical background was a major predictor of fairness evaluations. While general practitioners showed different response patterns for all three allocation situations, the responses by lay people were very similar. Lay people rated 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' on top of all allocation principles—e.g., for donor organs 83.8% (95% CI: [81.2%–86.2%]) rated 'sickest first' as fair ('fair' is represented by scale points 5–7), and 69.5% [66.2%–72.4%] rated 'waiting list' as fair. The corresponding results for general practitioners: 'prognosis' 79.7% [74.2%–84.9%], 'combination of criteria' 72.6% [66.4%–78.5%], and 'sickest first' 74.5% [68.6%–80.1%); these were the highest-rated allocation principles for donor organs allocation. Interestingly, only 44.3% [37.7%–50.9%] of the general practitioners rated 'instrumental value' as fair for the allocation of hospital beds during a flu epidemic. The fairness evaluations by general practitioners obtained for joint replacements: 'sickest first' 84.0% [78.8%–88.6%], 'combination of criteria' 65.6% [59.2%–71.8%], and 'prognosis' 63.7% [57.1%–70.0%]. 'Lottery', 'reciprocity', 'instrumental value', and 'monetary contribution' were considered very unfair allocation principles by both groups. Medical students' ratings were similar to those of general practitioners, and the ratings by other health professionals resembled those of lay people. Conclusions Results are partly at odds with current conclusions proposed by some ethicists. A number of ethicists reject 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' as morally unjustifiable allocation principles, whereas those allocation principles received the highest fairness endorsements by lay people and to some extent also by health professionals. Decision makers are advised to consider whether or not to give ethicists, health professionals, and the general public an equal voice when attempting to arrive at maximally endorsed allocations of scarce medical resources. ; ISSN:1932-6203

This study examined outside observers' judgments of the influence of the nature and similarity of transacted resources on the growth of new and old friendships. A number of hypotheses were developed and tested in a questionnaire study in which female subjects responded to vignettes describing exchanges between two male friends. The design was a 2 (particularistic vs. universalistic resources) x 2 (similar vs. dissimilar resources) x 2 (new vs. old friendship) factorial. A new friendship was (with few exceptions) considered to grow more when similar particularistic rather than similar universalistic or dissimilar resources were exchanged, and when similar universalistic rather than dissimilar resources were exchanged. There were few corresponding differences for an old friendship, however. Also, the exchange of similar particularistic resources, as well as the exchange of dissimilar resources, were seen as more conducive to the growth of a new rather than of an old friendship. The exchange of similar universalistic resources was seen to affect new and old friendships about the same. Overall, the nature of resources transacted, i.e., their degree of particularism/universalism, was the most important cue in subjects'predictions about the development of friendship.