Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Justice motivation

Justice motivation:
What is justice motivation, what causes it, and how is it pursued and satisfied?

Edit the placeholder chapter title and sub-title above.
Ensure exact match of wording and casing (capitalisation) with the 2024 list of topics.
All sub-titles end with a question mark.
Seek approval for any changes to wording and punctuation.
Do not list author name. Authorship is as per the page's edit history.

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Replace the link in the box above once the multimedia presentation has been published.

Overview

Imagine...

Figure 1. News platforms have become an easy way for us to gain access to information and events near and far.

You are sitting at home watching the news (see Figure 1.), and a segment comes on about a person who has been falsely accused of a crime and is currently in prison awaiting their fate to be decided. They have no control over the outcome. They may be punished for a crime they never committed, or they may happily be allowed to return to their loved ones.

After the segment finishes how do you feel? Maybe you notice your blood is boiling with anger, how dare they put an innocent person in prison!? Maybe you are so distraught you immediately open your laptop to research how you can help this poor person? Or maybe you simply turn off the TV and move on with your day? Some people are able to go on with their daily lives not allowing the injustices they see to get to them, others dedicate their whole lives to trying to provide solutions to the injustices they are passionate about. But what dictates whether a person will turn off the TV or sign the petition?

Justice motivation is the desire to maintain fairness in situations. Many theories and psychological branches aim to explain why humans hold this desire. Evolutionary psychologists hold the belief that justice behaviour developed during human evolution as a means for survival (Petersen, Sell, Tooby, and Cosmides, 2012). Developmental psychologists believe that learning and exposure during upbringing develop a child's sense of fairness which then influences their justice behaviour (Krebs, 2008). Some theories hold that a person's reaction to injustice is based on their personality type, which will influences their emotional reaction to injustices (Baumert, Gollwitzer, Staubach, and Schmitt, 2011). Some theories believe that our motivation for justice is driven by the behaviour of analysing the deservingness of a situation (Hafer and Begue, 2005). Others believe that justices are judged by the inputs and outcomes of a situation to see whether it is fair or not (Hook and Cook, 1979). Some believe that all humans share the need for more pleasure and less pain in themselves and those around, which drives the need for fairness (Mills, 2004).

Combining these theories and inputs shows that justice motivation is a complex type of motivation and there is not only one way for it to be looked at. Understanding justice motivation provides a deeper understanding on what it means to be human. The shared need for fairness, no matter how weak or strong it is, brings humans closer together and is a reminder that people are not all that different from each other.

Focus questions:

What drives justice behaviour?
What role does our upbringing play in justice behaviour?
What role does nature play in justice behaviour?

Main theories

Theorists have been trying to understand what drives justice behaviour for decades. These main theories provide a peak into why humans behave the way that they do when it comes justice and injustice.

Justice sensitivity theory

For decades social psychologists have been trying to understand the difference in tolerance between people when it comes to injustice (Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, Arbach, 2005). Justice sensitivy theory proposes that tolerence to injustice is a personality trait that reflects someone's perceived importance of justice in their lives (Decety and Yoder, 2015). People who are high in justice sensitivity tend to notice injustices regularly, think about them more, and have more of an emotional reaction to injustices compared to those with low justice sensitivity (Baumert et al., 2011). People high in justice sensitivity tend to act out more against injustices and are more active in protests (Baumert et al., 2011). Justice sensitivity theory developed branches of justice sensitivities (Baumert et al., 2011). These branches can be used to explain what type of injustice is more likely to trigger an emotional reaction from each person (Baumert et al., 2011).

Branches of justice sensitivities

Victim sensitivity

An individual's response when experiencing unjust disadvantages or treatment oneself (Decety and Yoder, 2016). Victim-sensitive persons are highly sensitive to exploitation and will react to signs of untrustworthiness even if slight (Decety and Yoder, 2016). This sensitivity can sometimes result in antisocial behaviour through the motivation to avoid exploitation (Baumart, Adra, and Li, 2022).

Perpetrator sensitivity

Involves an individual’s heightened awareness of injustices perpetrated themselves (Baumert, Adra, and Li, 2022). Those high in perpetrator sensitivity are seen to experience more guilt when committing injustices and show a strong motivation to restore the injustices they commit (Baumart, Adra, and Li, 2022).

Beneficiary sensitivity

Refers to an individual’s awareness and concern to the benefits they receive in situations (Baumert, Adra, Li, 2022). They are sensitive to the fairness of outcomes and the distribution of resources they gain from (Baumert, Adra, Li, 2022)

Observer sensitivity

Those high in observer sensitivity have higher reactions to injustices that they see, even if they are not involved (Baumart, Adra, and Li, 2022). They are more likely to intervene in unfair situations despite any possible risks in doing so (Baumart, Adra, and Li, 2022).

Equity theory

Equity theory was developed by Adams' in 1963 (Lerner, 1977). According to equity theory, when a person comes across an injustice, they evaluate it by comparing a person's inputs and outcomes (Hook and Cook, 1979). Inputs are a person’s contributions that justify their claim of the outcomes, and the outcomes are the rewards gained from the input (Hook and Cook, 1979). The theory posits that when people perceive an unfair imbalance between a contribution and an award, they experience distress (Lerner, 1977). The distress experienced when identifying something unfair motivates them to restore equity (Hook and Cook, 1979).

Just-world theory

Experimenters Lerner and Simmons developed the theory that people need to believe that the world is a just place (Hafer and Begue, 2005). To maintain this belief, when people come across an issue of injustice, they analyse the victims deservingness to see if they can justify the situation (Hafer and Begue, 2005). Therefore, people will change their behaviour to an injustice based on their beliefs about the victim (Hafer and Begue, 2005). For example, if they believe the victim is underserving of the injustice, they will respond by helping the victim, but if their fate feels deserved, they believe the injustice is rational, which restores their belief that the world is just (Hafer and Begue, 2005).

Case study

Lerner (1977) in his article mentions an experiment conducted in 1974 that had children perform activities for rewards. These children undergoing the activities were given an opportunity to give up their leisure time to help another child complete their activity who was behind (Lerner, 1977). When the child knew that the other child was behind in their task due to an unfair disadvantage, such as being a child with a disability, they gave up their leisure time to help, however, if they knew that the child needed more help due to their own actions, they did not help the other child in need (Lerner, 1977). These experiments are an example of the early behaviour of analysing someone's deservingness when making a decision to restore injustice or not (Lerner, 1977).

Moral foundations theory

Moral foundations theory was developed by Haidt and Joseph in 2004 who proposed 6 foundations that make up morality across cultures (Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen, and Miene, 1998). These foundations include care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity, and liberty (Harper and Harris, 2016). These moral foundations can influence an individuals attitudes and responses to issues of injustice (Harper and Harris, 2016). For example, Harper and Harris (2016), used moral foundations theory to explain the difference in reaction between people analysing specific crimes. The public attitudes towards the selected crime can change based on which moral foundation is most present in which person (Harper and Harris, 2016).

Foundations

Fairness foundation

The fairness foundation involves people’s ideas of human rights and ability to make their own decisions (Harper and Harris, 2016). Therefore, those with high fairness foundation beliefs would analyse an offender's perceived harmfulness and responsibility towards the crime to decide on the fairness of their punishment (Harper and Harris, 2016).

Loyalty foundation

This foundation values community bonds, which can lead to conservative attitudes where a person will believe in more stronger punishments for people who come from out-groups (Harper and Harris, 2016).

Authority foundation

This foundation is built on respect for law and social hierarchy (Harper and Harris, 2016). Those with a high authority foundation may believe more in the need for punishment for injustices due to their respect for the law (Harper and Harris, 2016). Those high in authority foundation, however, may also minimise their response to injustices committed by authority figures they respect (Harper and Harris, 2016).

Purity foundation

Those with a high-purity foundation are concerned by issues that are deemed disgusting or unnatural, therefore, hold a more conservative moral stance (Harper and Harris, 2016). This foundation can lead to strong reactions to injustices that are seen as taboo in their eyes (Harper and Harris, 2016).

Liberty foundation

This foundation values an individual's capacity to make their own decision, which is why it is seen as a more progressive moral foundation (Harper and Harris, 2016). Those who hold a high liberty foundation tend to believe less in punishment and more in progressive approaches, such as rehabilitation and preventative measures when it comes to injustices (Harper and Harris, 2016).

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism holds that the prevention of pain and promotion of pleasure are the meanings of happiness and happiness is the purpose of human life (Mills, 2004). Utilitarianism judges the consequences of an action by its ability to promote pleasure and prevent harm (Foot, 1985). Therefore, utilitarianism emphasises the importance of preventing harm to society, providing a clear framework for justice (Mills, 2004). According to utilitarianism, as humans grow, they learn what consequences come from their actions, developing their sense of morality (Mills, 2004). The importance of utility is an important aspect of utilitarianism, and describes it as a powerful factor that drives motivation (Mills, 2004). When life involves the harmony and consideration of others harm in one’s decisions, they are following the principles of utilitarianism (Mills, 2004).

Key points

Justice motivation through utilitarianism is understood by the need to promote pleasure and prevent harm in yourself and those around in order to live a happy life (Mills, 2004).
According to moral foundations theory, a person's ideas and behaviours around justice are influenced by which foundation is most present in them. Those can be care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity, and liberty foundation (Harper and Harris, 2016).
According to just-world theory, justice behaviour can be explained by the human need to believe that the world is a just-place. People will base their behaviour in situations of injustice by their analysis of whether the situation seems deserved in their eyes. (Hafer and Beague, 2005).
Equity theory analyses justice through inputs and outcomes. If a person believes someone’s input to be fair to the outcome, they see the situation as just. If they see their outcome unfair to the amount of input put in, they feel uncomfortable. It is this discomfort that drives the behaviour to restore justice according to equity theory (Hook and Cook, 1979).
Justice sensitivity theory states that people’s reaction to injustice depends on whether their personality reflects high sensitivity to justice and which type of sensitivity they hold. High justice sensitivity creates strong emotional reactions to injustice and further likelihood to restore justice. The branches of justice sensitivity include victim, perpetrator, beneficiary, and observer. These branches determine what types of injustices are more triggering and the type of reaction they are more likely to have (Baumert et al., 2011).

Nature vs. nurture

Figure 2. Evolutionary psychologists can look at the behaviour seen in primates to gain a better understanding of human evolution and modern behaviour.

While the main theories provide details as to why humans can be driven to seek fairness, evolution and people's upbringing can also play a role in justice behaviour.

Evolutionary roles

Some theorists use evolution to explain justice motivation. Petersen et al. (2012) believes that humans evolved the ability to counter exploitation through the social dynamics our ancestors would have had. In the past, humans would have depended on their social interactions for survival, therefore, the ability to analyse the value of a relationship would have become a necessary skill (Petersen et al., 2012). This is known as the welfare trade off ratio, and Petersen et al. (2012) use this concept to explain justice behaviour. The welfare trade off ratio involves analysing the association value of someone by looking at the long-term benefits of the relationship (Petersen et al., 2012). This association value can be influenced by someone’s social status, willingness to cooperate, and kinship (Petersen et al., 2012). To analyse how the welfare trade off ratio applies in the modern world, Petersen et al. (2012) performed a study where people shared their preference for rehabilitation or punishment for people undergoing the criminal justice system. Persen et al. (2012) found that a criminal’s held association value to each person and the seriousness of the crime deciphered whether someone would choose to rehabilitate or punish a criminal.

Researchers explore justice motivation not only from human behaviour but primates too (see Figure 2.). Decety and Yoder (2016) in their article explain how justice motivation evolved to solidify cooperation within groups. Primate species have been shown to respond negatively to inequity behaviour (Decety and Yoder, 2016). This inequity aversion has been seen in species who cooperate with non-kin, suggesting that this behaviour developed to motivate unity in social groups for mutual benefits (Decety and Yoder, 2016). These evolutionary beliefs still stand today, recent studies speak of our evolutionary abilities express empathy, hold responsibility for the wellbeing of others, and prioritise social behaviour (Gazzillo, Fimiani, De Luca, Dazzi, and Curtis, 2020).

Developmental factors

Social learning theorists believe that the development of morality and justice behaviour comes from internalising social values during upbringing (Krebs, 2008). According to Krebs (2008), children are born with a weak sense of what's right and wrong, but this slowly develops to become more sophisticated as they are taught the norms of their culture, are rewarded or punished when they display certain behaviours, and find models to set examples.

Gazillo et al. (2020), in their article express that from three months of age infants are able to seperate prosocial behaviours from antisocial behaviours and display preference for prosocial behaviour. According to Gazillo et al. (2020), studies suggest that the preference for prosocial behaviour comes from the development of moral evaluations as infants begin to respond to social contexts around them. Empathy builds moral sensitivity, which allows infants to resonate with those in distress, from 6 months infants are able to express concern for those around them, and by 14 months they begin to help others without any encouragement (Gazillo et al., 2020). While these altruistic behaviours are observed at a young age, children also are seen to develop a sense of fairness by the age of 3, and are able to understand social norms and distinguish between prosocial and moral actions (Gazillo et al., 2020). Their morality helps them to regulate their interactions with people where their understanding of social norms influences their behaviour in groups (Gazillo et al., 2020). These prosocial skills and behaviours continue to grow as they gain cognitive and emotional skills into adulthood (Gazillo et al., 2020).

Gazillo et al. (2020) in their article also mention moral emotions and how they motivate moral behaviour. There are two types of moral emotions according to Gazillo et al. (2020), self-conscious emotions, including shame and guilt, and other-condemning emotions, such as contempt and anger. Guilt is built from empathy for others as with empathy you are able to feel responsible for others emotions, which promotes prosocial behaviour (Gazillo et al., 2020). The development of guilt and how feelings of guilt are handled are influenced by a child's temperament and the parenting styles a child is exposed to (Gazillo et al., 2020). Positive parenting where the reflection of guilt-triggering actions is encouraged, help develop adaptive guilt and a healthy sense of what it means to feel guilty, which can then encourage altruistic and prosocial skills (Gazillo et al.,2020)

Key Points:

Evolutionary psychology explains justice behaviour and our sense of morality as a quality developed to encourage prosocial behaviour necessary for survival.
Developmental psychology describes how morality and justice behaviour is developed throughout childhood, as children get exposed to and learn about social contexts, modelling, and cognitive skills and abilities.

Conclusion

The human need for fairness and seeking of justice is a complicated type of motivation. When looking at utilitarianism, the need for justice and fairness is driven by one's need to seek pleasure and avoid pain in themselves and the people around them (Mills, 2008). Moral foundations theory developed branches of moral compasses people can hold to explain justice behaviour (Harper and Harris, 2016). Just-world theory holds that justice behaviour is controlled by the human need to believe that the world is a just place (Hafer and Beague, 2005). Equity theory states that the discomfort that comes from unfair situations drives justice behaviour (Hook and Cook, 1979). The personality trait of being sensitive to justice can also dictate justice behaviour (Baumert et al, 2011). Evolutionary psychology can also be used to explain justice motivation. Our drive towards fairness stems from early humans need for prosocial behaviour and cooperation as a means for survival (Decety and Yoder, 2016). Developmental psychology also looks at human upbringing and childhood learning experiences to explain justice behaviour (Gazillo et al., 2020).

Without the human need for fairness, there would be less shared experiences, less empathy for one another, and less overall human connection. It is these abilities and needs that create the human experience, which is why the need for fairness and justice behaviour is an important branch of motivation.

References

Basheer, A., Amal, A., Fourat, A., and Nour, A. (2024). Batham’s utilitarianism ethical theory and its applications in the triage system: a scholarly philosophical paper. Jordan Journal of Nursing Research. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.14525/JJNR.v3i3.02

Baumert, A., Adra, A., and Li, M. (2022). Justice sensitivity in intergroup contexts: a theoretical framework. Social Justice Research, 35. 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00378-9

Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., Staubach, M., and Schmitt, M. (2011). Justice Sensitivity and the Processing of Justice-related Information. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 386–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.800

Baumert. A., Rothmund, T., Thomas, N., Gollwitzer, M., and Schmitt, M. (2013) Justice as a moral motive. Handbook of Moral Motivation. 159–180. https://brill.com/display/book/9789462092754/BP000013.xml

Brosnan, F. S. (2013). Justice- and fairness-related behaviours in nonhuman primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 110, 10416–10423. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42706675

Decety, J., and Cowell, J. M. (2015). Empathy, Justice, and Moral Behaviour. AJOB Neuroscience, 6(3). 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2015.1047055

Decety, J., and Yoder, K. J. (2015). Empathy and motivation for justice: cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others. Social Neuroscience, 11(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1029593

Decety, J. and Yoder, K. J. (2016). The emerging social neuroscience of justice motivation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(1). 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2020.1768229

Foot, P. (1985). Utilitarianism and the virtues. Mind, 94(374). 196–209. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254745

Gazzillo, F., Fimiani, R., De Luca, E., Dazzi, N., and Curtis, J. (2020). New developments in understanding morality: between evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, and control-mastery theory. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 37(1), 37–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pap0000235

Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., and Ditto, P. H. (2013). Chapter two - moral foundations theory: the pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47. 55–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4

Hafer, C. L., and Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128

Harper, C. A ., and Harris, A. J. (2016). Applying moral foundations theory to understand public views of sexual offending. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2016.1217086

Hook, J. G., Cook, T. D. (1979). Equity theory and the cognitive ability of children. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3). 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.429

Hulle, S., Liebig, S., and May. M. J. (2018). Measuring attitudes toward distributive justice: the basic social justice orientations scale. Social Indicators Research, 136(2). 663–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1580-x

Krebs, D. L. (2008). Morality: an evolutionary account. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.x

Lerner, J. M. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45(1). 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00591.x

Mill, J. S. (2004). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green, And Co. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11224/pg11224-images.html#CHAPTER_II

Nilsson, A., Erlandsson, A., and Vastfjall, D. (2020). Moral foundations theory and the psychology of charitable giving. European Journal of Personality, 34(3), https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2256

Peterson, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L. (2012). To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 33(6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.003

Sabbagh, C. and Schmitt, M. (2017). Social justice through multidisciplinary lenses: a review essay. Social Justice Research, 30. 106–116. DOI 10.1007/s11211-017-0278-1

External links

Adam's Equity Theory of Motivation: A Simple Summary (Website)
Justice Motive(Website)
What is Fair and What is Just?(YouTube)
Instrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (Website)