Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2017, Vol. 49 Issue (6) : 794-813     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00794
|
 Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention
 ZHANG Shuwei
 (Center for Chinese Public Administration Research; School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)
Download: PDF(761 KB)   Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract   Social justice is one of human's long pursuit, as well as core values of social governance in contemporary China. People’s perception of social justice affects their institutional trust, which in turn influences their cooperation with government. However, for the lack of empirical research on the relationship between public cooperation and social justice or institutional trust, there is no evidence of the process from social justice to public cooperation in individual-institution interaction. This research consisting of three studies focused on the mechanism under which social justice has an impact on cooperation through the mediating effect of institutional trust in public good dilemmas by using the methods of laboratory experiment. Furthermore, ultimatum game and impunity game were creatively used in individual-institution interaction to successfully manipulate social justice. Social justice includes distributive justice and procedural justice. In addition, institutional trust is divided into instrumental trust and motive-based trust. Pre-study investigated the ratio of distributive justice in ultimatum game, which was the base of study 1 and study 2. Study 1 aims to find the dual-pathway model from social justice to public cooperation through one pathway of instrumental trust and another pathway of motive-based trust in the organizational context. Moreover, the purpose of study 2 is extending this dual-pathway model to the social context. The results indicated that: First, people with high distributive justice were more likely to participate in public cooperation than those with low distributive justice. Meanwhile, people with high procedural justice were also more likely to participate in public cooperation than those with low procedural justice. Second, both distributive justice and procedural justice positively influenced public cooperation intention (PCI) at the same time. One the other hand, both instrumental trust and motive-based trust partially mediated the relation between social justice and PCI. This fact supported the “dual-pathway model of PCI”. In general, the total effect of distributive justice on PCI was stronger than that of procedural justice. An important theoretical implication of this research is setup of the dual-pathway model to public cooperation intention with organizations and governments in the organizational and social contexts. In addition, the current series of studies provide some useful experimental paradigms (e.g., ultimatum game and impunity game) for manipulating social justice. Regarding the practical implications, this research examines the social psychological motivation mechanism underlying public cooperation in China to help managers and administrators understand how to improve individuals’ cooperation with institution.
Keywords  distributive justice      procedural justice      instrumental trust      motive-based trust      ultimatum game      impunity game      public good dilemmas     
ZTFLH:     
  B849: C91  
Fund: 
Corresponding Authors: ZHANG Shuwei, E-mail: zhshuw2@mail.sysu.edu.cn      E-mail: E-mail: zhshuw2@mail.sysu.edu.cn
Just Accepted Date: 27 April 2017  
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
ZHANG Shuwei
Cite this article:   
ZHANG Shuwei.  Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(6): 794-813.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00794     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2017/V49/I6/794
[1] YANG Linchuan, MA Hongyu, JIANG Hai, LIANG Juan, QI Ling.  When do procedural justice and outcome justice interact to influence legitimacy of authorities? The moderating effect of social class[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 980-994.
[2] WANG Yiwen; ZHANG Zhen; ZHANG Wei; HUANG Liang; GUO Fengbo; Yuan Sheng. Group Membership Modulates The Recipient’s Fairness Consideration in Ultimatum Game[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(12): 1850-1859.
[3] SUI Yang;WANG Hui;YUE Yi-Ni;Fred Luthans. The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Follower Performance and Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital and the Moderating Role of Procedural Justice[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(9): 1217-1230.
[4] WU Yan,ZHOU Xiao-Lin. The Context-Dependency of Fairness Processing: Evidence from ERP Study[J]. , 2012, 44(6): 797-806.
[5] WANG Qin,BAI Xue-Jun,GUO Long-Jian,SHEN De-Li. The Effect of Suppressing Negative Emotion on Economic Decision-making[J]. , 2012, 44(5): 690-697.
[6] ZHU Li-Qi,HUANGFU Gang,Monika KELLER ,MOU Yi,CHEN Dan-Zhi. The Development of Chinese Children’s Decision Making in Ultimatum and Dictator Games[J]. , 2008, 40(04): 402-408.
[7] Chen Xi,Ma Jianhong,Shi Kan. The Effects of Performance, Competence and Position on Organizational Distributive Justice[J]. , 2007, 39(05): 901-908.
[8] Zhou Hao,Long Lirong. Relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Justice[J]. , 2007, 39(05): 909-917.
[9] Wang Yan,Long-Lirong,Zhou Jie,Zu Wei. Withdrawal Behaviors Under Distributive Injustice:the Influence of Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice[J]. , 2007, 39(02): 335-342.
[10] Zhou Hao,Long Lirong,Wang Yan1,Wang Zhongjun,Wu Yi, Ke Shanyu. THE DIFFERENT OUTCOME OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE[J]. , 2005, 37(05): 687-693.
[11] Li Chaoping,Shi-kan. THE INFLUENCE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ON JOB BURNOUT[J]. , 2003, 35(05): 677-684.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech