Do the Means Always Justify the Ends, or Do the Ends Sometimes Justify the Means? A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning

@article{Skitka2002DoTM,
  title={Do the Means Always Justify the Ends, or Do the Ends Sometimes Justify the Means? A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning},
  author={Linda J. Skitka},
  journal={Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
  year={2002},
  volume={28},
  pages={588 - 597}
}
  • L. Skitka
  • Published 1 May 2002
  • Law
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This study explored whether personal identity concerns relate in important ways to how people decide whether an event is fair or unfair. Because moral mandates are selective expressions of values that are central to people’s sense of personal identity, people should be highly motivated to protect these positions from possible threat. Consistent with predictions based on a value protection model of justice, whether people had a moral mandate on abortion, civil rights, or immigration was… 

Tables from this paper

When Due Process Is of No Consequence: Moral Mandates and Presumed Defendant Guilt or Innocence

Most current theories of justice are focused on how social identity, instrumental concerns, or both shape how people decide whether something is fair or unfair. A neglected consideration is that

Does Moral Conviction Really Override Concerns About Procedural Justice? A Reexamination of the Value Protection Model

A large research literature on procedural justice demonstrates that people are more accepting of decisions that they do not feel are advantageous or fair when those decisions are arrived at using

Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger?

Two studies tested 3 explanations for the moral mandate effect and the anger hypothesis, finding that people with moral mandates have a greater motivation to seek out procedural flaws when outcomes fail to support their moral point of view.

The Dark Side of Moral Conviction

Moral conviction forms the foundation for strong, morally vested attitudes and beliefs (i.e., “moral mandates”) that have high action potential because they are “oughts” and “shoulds.” Although moral

Morality in the Law: The Psychological Foundations of Citizens' Desires to Punish Transgressions

Evidence from a number of research methods converges to suggest that when a person registers a transgression against self or others, the person experiences an intuitively produced, emotionally tinged

Moral Spillovers: The Effect of Moral Violations on Deviant Behavior

a b s t r a c t Two experiments investigated whether outcomes that violate people's moral standards increase their deviant behavior (the moral spillover effect). In Study 1, participants with and

The Social and Political Implications of Moral Conviction

Scholars often assume that some issues globally evoke moral reactions, whether these issues are presented as moral dilemmas (e.g., trolley problems) or as controversial issues of the day (e.g., the

When do fair procedures not matter? A test of the identity violation effect.

Findings from 2 studies yield support for the proposed identity violation effect, which posits that when an outcome violates a central aspect of one's self, objectively fair procedures do not improve procedural and distributive justice perceptions.

The Psychology of Moral Conviction

This paper reviews current theory and research that indicates that attitudes held with strong moral conviction (‘moral mandates’) represent something psychologically distinct from other constructs
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 39 REFERENCES

Justice-based opposition to social policies : Is it genuine ?

Three studies examined whether the concern for justice can be a genuine determinant of attitudes toward affirmative action (AA) or whether justice-based opposition merely masks prejudice. In line

Procedural Justice and Participation

Recent social psychological work on procedural justice suggests that people given the opportunity to participate in a decision are more likely to see that decision as just than those given no such

A Relational Model of Authority in Groups

Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic.

The research reported in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants 84-11142 and 85-18597), the American Bar Foundation, and the Institute for Civil Justice of the RAND

Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next.

In this article, 2 experiments are presented. In both experiments, the independent variables were whether the procedure was accurate or inaccurate, whether the outcome was favorable or unfavorable,

Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects : On the psychology of the fair process effect

This article focuses on the psychology of the fair process effect (the frequently replicated finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects people's reactions). It is argued that when

Evaluating Outcomes by Means of the Fair Process Effect: Evidence for Different Processes in Fairness and Satisfaction Judgments

The authors refine and extend their explanation of the psychology of the fair process effect (the positive influence of procedural fairness on outcome evaluations). On the basis of fairness heuristic

The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals.

Although the results fit the sacred-value-protection model (SVPM) better than rival formulations, the SVPM must draw on cross-cultural taxonomies of relational schemata to specify normative boundaries on thought.

New directions in equity research.

This article consists of four sections: The first section elucidates a general theory of social behavior—equity theory. Equity theory consists of four propositions designed to predict when

The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: a study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior.

  • J. Krosnick
  • Psychology
    Journal of personality and social psychology
  • 1988
The impact of policy attitudes on candidate preferences was found to depend on the importance of those attitudes, just as theory suggests, and two mechanisms were documented: People for whom a policy attitude is important perceive larger differences between competing candidates' attitudes, and important attitudes appear to be more accessible in memory than unimportant ones.