Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Psychology & Developing Societies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krishnan, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Justice Perception and Allocation Rule Preferences: Does Social Disadvantage Matter?

Lila Krishnan

Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

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.

Psychology & Developing Societies, Vol. 13, No. 2, 193-219 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/097133360101300205


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Psychology Developing SocietiesHome page
L. Krishnan, P. Varma, and V. Pandey
Reward and Punishment Allocation in the Indian Culture
Psychology Developing Societies, January 1, 2009; 21(1): 79 - 131.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Psychology Developing SocietiesHome page
L. Krishnan and D.W. Carment
Senior/Junior Recipient Status and Reward Allocation
Psychology Developing Societies, March 1, 2006; 18(1): 15 - 35.
[Abstract] [PDF]