Social Justice Research最新文献

People value being paid appropriately for their work-but national surveys indicate that many working adults report a discrepancy between what they actually earn and what they think they should justly earn. This evidence provides an impetus for examining the factors that shape workers' justice perceptions of earnings. The present study elaborates on two key distributive justice principles-equity and need-that guide people's ideas about their just reward. We ask: How do contemporary workers experience and understand the nature of work effort and need? We employ a mixed methods research design to answer this question. First, we analyze focus group interviews among workers in Toronto, Ontario (N = 22), and generate two novel hypotheses about the factors that shape workers' expectation for greater rewards: "downloaded" and "sideloaded" extra work that induce feelings of overwork, and rising cost of living and the associated financial strain. Second, drawing upon focus group narratives, we operationalize these concepts and test our hypotheses with a 2019 nationally representative sample of Canadian workers (N = 2,111). The results show that downloaded and sideloaded extra work shape greater reward expectations partly through the sense of overload, and rising cost of living and the associated financial strain also shape reward expectations. Furthermore, financial strain amplifies the link between extra work and greater reward expectations. We situate these findings within a broader discussion of the nature of effort and need among contemporary workers and its implications for justice perceptions.

The emotional costs of the COVID-19 pandemic have raised concerns among clinicians and scholars. The goal of the current study was to test whether or not neuroticism, conscientiousness, and personal belief in a just world are associated with depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the contribution of neuroticism and conscientiousness was assessed over and above demographic variables and COVID-19 perceptions, and the unique contribution of personal belief in a just world was evaluated beyond all the other study variables. Samples were collected in three different countries-Israel (N = 917), Germany (N = 213), and India (N = 160). Online self-report questionnaires were utilized to measure age, gender, COVID-19 perceptions (probability, severity, and self-efficacy), neuroticism, conscientiousness, personal belief in a just world, and depression. The findings indicated that, across the three countries, neuroticism was positively associated with depression (correlations ranging from .24 to .44), and conscientiousness and personal belief in a just world were negatively associated with depression (correlations ranging from - .31 to - .21, and from - .35 to - .23, respectively). Moreover, neuroticism and conscientiousness explained unique variance over and above demographic variables and COVID-19 perceptions (except conscientiousness in India), and the effect of personal belief in a just world on depression was significant beyond the effects of all other study variables. These findings support the role of personality in explaining depression regardless of situational characteristics and stress the role of just world beliefs as protective factors against negative emotions.

This article disentangles and explores some commonly made assumptions about egalitarian state-socialist ideologies. Based on the conceptual framework of the multiprinciple approach of justice, it presents the results of an in-depth analysis of (e)valuation patterns of distributive justice in Cuban state-socialism. The analysis mainly focuses on ideational conceptions of distributive justice (just rewards), but it also accounts for distribution outcomes and resulting (in)equalities (actual rewards). The results of the comparative case study of the Cuban framework of institutions and political leaders' views in two periods of time, the early 1960s and the 2010s, point to (e)valuation patterns that are generally labelled as egalitarian, such as the allocation rules of outcome equality and (non-functional) needs. However, contrary to common assumptions about egalitarian state-socialist ideologies, the results also point to several other patterns, including equity rules as well as functional and productivist allocation rules. I argue that many of these (e)valuation patterns, in their connection to the discursive storyline of the Cuban economic battle, are indeed compatible with egalitarian state-socialist ideology.