Basic social justice orientations—measuring order-related justice in the European Social Survey Round 9

Author:

Adriaans JuleORCID,Fourré Marie

Abstract

AbstractIndividuals hold normative ideas about the just distribution of goods and burdens within a social aggregate. These normative ideas guide the evaluation of existing inequalities and refer to four basic principles: (1) Equality stands for an equal distribution of rewards and burdens. While the principle of (2) need takes individual contributions into account, (3) equity suggests a distribution based on merit. The (4) entitlement principle suggests that ascribed (e.g., gender) and achieved status characteristics (e.g., occupational prestige) should determine the distribution of goods and burdens. Past research has argued that preferences for these principles vary with social position as well as the social structure of a society. The Basic Social Justice Orientations (BSJO) scale was developed to assess agreement with the four justice principles but so far has only been fielded in Germany. Round 9 of the European Social Survey (ESS R9 with data collected in 2018/2019) is the first time; four items of the BSJO scale (1 item per justice principle) were included in a cross-national survey program, offering the unique opportunity to study both within and between country variation. To facilitate substantive research on preference for equality, equity, need, and entitlement, this report provides evidence on measurement quality in 29 European countries from ESS R9. Analyzing response distributions, non-response, reliability, and associations with related variables, we find supportive evidence that the four items of the BSJO scale included in ESS R9 produce low non-response rates, estimate agreement with the four distributive principles reliably, and follow expected correlations with related concepts. Researchers should, however, remember that the BSJO scale, as implemented in the ESS R9, only provides manifest indicators, which therefore may not cover the full spectrum of the underlying distributive principles but focus on specific elements of it.

Funder

Leibniz-Gemeinschaft

Universität Bielefeld

Publisher

Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID)

Subject

General Medicine

Reference44 articles.

1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.

2. Adriaans, J., Bohmann, S., Targa, M., Liebig, S., Hinz, T., Jasso, G., Kittel, B., & Sabbagh, C. (2020). Justice and fairness in europe: Topline results from round 9 of the european social survey. ESS Topline Results Series Issue, 10, 3–18.

3. Adriaans, J., Griese, F., Auspurg, K., Bledow, N., Bohmann, S., Busemeyer, M., Delhey, J., Goebel, J., Groh-Samberg, O., Heckhausen, J., Hinz, T., Kroh, M., Lengfeld, H., Lersch, P., Liebig, S., Richter, D., Sachweh, P., Schupp, J., Schwerdt, G., & Verwiebe, R. (2021). Dokumentation zum Entwicklungsprozess des Moduls Einstellungen zu sozialer Ungleichheit im SOEP (v38). SOEP Survey Papers, 1071, 1–33.

4. Ahrens, L. (2019). Theorizing the impact of fairness perceptions on the demand for redistribution. Political Research Exchange, 1(1), 1–17.

5. Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter? Acta Sociologica, 44(4), 283–299.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3