Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

http://jcc.sagepub.com Cross-Cultural Differences in Perceptions of Distributive Justice: A Comparison of Hong Kong and Indonesia
Virginia Murphy-Berman and John J. Berman Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2002; 33; 157 DOI: 10.1177/0022022102033002003 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/2/157

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology

Additional services and information for Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/2/157

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY Murphy-Berman, Berman / CROSS-CULTURAL JUSTICE

Respondents in Hong Kong and Indonesia rated a hypothetical allocator depicted as distributing resources based on merit or need in either a positive (reward) or negative (cutback) resource context. Hong Kong respondents perceived that the use of merit was fairer and more principled than the use of need, but they also perceived that the allocator who favored merit was less nice, more selfish, and acted less because of concern for otherswelfare. Indonesian respondents saw the use of need as being fairer than the use of merit, and they perceived that the allocator who favored the needy was nicer and acted more out of concern for others. Cultural differences in respondents perceptions were greater for the use of merit than for the use of need. Respondents from both cultures tended to rate the allocator more positively when resources were being given out than when resources were being taken away.

CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE A Comparison of Hong Kong and Indonesia
VIRGINIA MURPHY-BERMAN JOHN J. BERMAN Skidmore College

Early equity models of justice suggest that determinations of distributive fairness are linked to assessments of equitability or perceptions that ones inputs are proportionate to ones outputs (Adams, 1965; Walster, Walster, & Bersheid, 1978). This framework was expanded by multiprinciple justice theorists who proposed that other principles, such as allocating on the basis of need and/or equality, may also be used to guide assessments of distributive justice (Leventhal, 1980; Schwinger, 1980). In addition to concerns about fairness, allocation decisions appear influenced by (a) the desire to project a positive image, both to oneself and to others (Greenberg, 1981; Reis, 1981); (b) the instrumental effects the allocator wants to produce (Deutsch, 1975, 1985); (c) the relationship between the allocator and the recipients (Fiske, 1991; Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990; and (d) the cultural context in which the allocation decision is being made (Berman & Murphy-Berman, 1996). Thus, complex considerations of a range of anticipated consequences may be associated with different types of allocation choices. In a comprehensive review of justice research, Trnblom (1992) noted that there has been a lack of sufficient attention paid to exploring the nature of the conflicts or dilemmas faced by allocators in different types of allocation contexts. Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, and Huo (1997) also discussed justice as a trade-off among anticipated consequences. Little empirical work has been conducted using this conflict framework to probe how people think about distributive justice and to explore how culture may mediate justice appraisals. In the perception of allocation trade-offs, there may sometimes be dissonance between what individuals think is the most fair, effective, and principled thing to do and what individuals think is the kindest approach. Miller (1991), for instance, suggested that in some contexts, ideas of compassion and goodness may be differentiated from ideas of justice.
AUTHORS NOTE: The authors would like to thank Helly Soetjipto at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and Peiguan Wu at Zhong Zhang University in China for their help in the collection of data for this study. JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 33 No. 2, March 2002 157-170 2002 Western Washington University

157

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

158

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Particularly in the West, she asserted, justice tends to be defined in terms of universal principles, whereas goodness and compassion tend to be perceived as being more discretionary and particularistic in nature. Batson (1994) also asserted that individuals may differentiate between acting on the basis of empathy versus on the basis of principle, with the latter being more consistently linked to ideas of justice. This differentiation between what is seen as fair and what is seen as good was found by Murphy-Berman and Berman (1999) in a study conducted in the United States that assessed how respondents perceived allocators who made different types of distributive justice choices. In that study, an allocator was described as choosing to reward either a meritorious or a needy worker in a hypothetical job situation. Respondents perceived that the allocator who favored the meritorious over the needy worker acted more fairly and in a more principled manner. The allocator who favored need over merit, however, was seen as behaving more compassionately. This set of contradictory perceptions following assessments of different types of distributive justice choices was labeled by Murphy-Berman and Berman (1999) as the allocation dilemma. This dilemma was defined to mean that in any justice decision, the attempt to maximize certain types of desirable outcomes may result in the minimization of other desirable outcomes. A question of interest is the generality of this dilemma to non-Western cultural contexts. Specifically, would individuals from cultures outside the United States also perceive a similar mixed set of consequences to occur following use of either merit- or need-based distributive justice choices? Furthermore, would there be differences within various types of nonWestern cultures in these distributive justice appraisals? To address these issues, we examined how individuals think about distributive justice in two different non-Western cultures, Hong Kong and Indonesia. These two cultures were chosen because they represent an interesting constellation of patterns of similarities and differences. For example, both cultures are Asian, and both can be defined as being generally collectivist. However, within these broad categorizations, differences exist in norms and beliefs that might be expected to affect how individuals think about fairness and justice. Certainly the term collectivist is a multidimensional construct along which cultures can vary considerably (see Bontempo & Rivero, 1992; Triandis, 1995). Examination of differences across a range of collectivism, however, has tended to be overlooked in favor of delineation of the variations between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. This has resulted in a tendency to inappropriately and overly simplistically categorize all non-Western collectivist cultures as being alike. Hong Kong and Indonesia are examples of two cultures that represent different faces of collectivism. On the Hofstede (1980) dimensions, Hong Kong showed the following pattern: (a) high on collectivism, (b) somewhat masculine on the masculinity/femininity dimension, (c) high on power difference, and (d) weak on uncertainty avoidance. In a study of individualism/collectivism and social organization within Chinese cultures, Ho, Hong, and Chiu (1989) suggested that Hong Kong is not unidimensionally collectivist. Rather, they asserted that Hong Kong embodies multiple traditions with increasing emphasis on individualistic values such as instrumentalism and contractualism in relationships and decreasing emphasis on duty and concerns about obligation. Yang (1986) echoed this sentiment and posited that the Chinese character is shifting toward increasing individualism and decreasing collectivism. Leung and Bond (1989) also found evidence of this mixed nature of Hong Kong Chinese collectivism. They conducted a study comparing the distributive justice preferences of

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

Murphy-Berman, Berman / CROSS-CULTURAL JUSTICE

159

respondents from Hong Kong and the United States. The authors showed that U.S. respondents preferred merit as a distribution strategy more than did the respondents from Hong Kong only when the relationship between the allocator and the recipients was informal and when relationship ties were strong. When, however, the allocator-recipient relationship was defined as more formal and businesslike, the Chinese respondents preference for merit matched that of the U.S. respondents. Indonesia presents another face of collectivism. On the Hofstede (1980) dimensions, Indonesia showed a pattern close to that found for Hong Kong. Indonesia is high on collectivism and power distance but shows fairly low uncertainty avoidance. Unlike Hong Kong, Indonesia is more toward the feminine than the masculine side on Hofstedes masculinity/ femininity dimension. Feminine cultures, according to the Hofstede formulation, stress interpersonal relationships, quality of life and concern for the weak, whereas masculine cultures emphasize values that promote competitiveness, material success, and assertiveness. Indonesia and Hong Kong also vary on some other important dimensions. Indonesia, unlike Hong Kong, is predominantly Islamic in religious orientation, especially in the area around Java, the region from which this studys respondents were drawn. Ali (1992) identified the Islamic ideal as de-emphasizing individualism as an end in itself and placing priority on the network of obligations and responsibilities that one has for ones family and community. The good of the community is deemed more important than achievement of ones own personal goals. Some popular sayings in Indonesia appear to reflect this other-oriented focus (e.g., Frederick & Worden, 1992; Koentjaraningrat, 1985). The key idea in these sayings is that the individual does not stand alone but has an obligation to maintain good relations with others and to pay close attention to others needs. The Javanese word runkun embodies this emphasis. This can be translated to mean that all parties are at a state of collective peace with each other (Pareek, 1988). Triandis et al. (1993), in an etic/emic analysis of individualism/collectivism, assessed differences across 10 cultures (including Hong Kong and Indonesia) on several key dimensions. He found both Hong Kong and Indonesia strongly endorsed what he labeled as lack of separation from ones in-group. Thus, in both societies, one is expected to belong throughout ones life to one or more tight in-groups from which one should not detach oneself. These ingroups offer protection and support but also demand unquestioning loyalty and commitment. However, the two cultures were not similar on every dimension. In Hong Kong, a high need for mastery and task orientation was coupled with this in-group focus; in Indonesian culture, on the other hand, sociability, or getting along with others, was particularly emphasized. What Triandis et al. termed affiliation without competition further emerged as a dimension in the Indonesian sample. This dimension loaded negatively on such items as It is important that I perform better than others on a task. Thus, although both Hong Kong and Indonesia might be considered collectivist in some aspects, important differences appear to exist. These differences were expected to express themselves in how resource allocators who use merit or need strategies would be perceived across a variety of dimensions. In general, because of the dual cultural emphasis on both individual competition and group affiliation, appraisals of merit versus need were expected to be more conflict-laden in Hong Kong than in Indonesia and to reflect a mix of both individualistic and collectivistic patterns. Within Indonesia, by contrast, the emphasis on high sociability and getting along with others combined with the stress on low competition was expected to result in justice appraisals that were more consistently collectivistic across dimensions.

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

160

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES First, we expected that because of the shared collectivist emphasis within Hong Kong and Indonesia on group affiliation, there would be agreement between cultures in perceptions related to allocator goodness following the use of either a merit or a need strategy. Specifically, we predicted that respondents from both Hong Kong and Indonesia would perceive that an allocator who chose to support the needy over the meritorious was a nicer person, was more concerned with the welfare of others, and acted less selfishly than an allocator who supported the meritorious over the needy. Second, we expected that cultural differences in perceptions of the merit versus the need allocator would emerge on types of appraisals that focused less on affiliation and more directly on justice concerns. Specifically, on these types of dimensions, we expected that respondents from Indonesia would show collectivistic patterns and more positively evaluate the allocator who used a need versus a merit strategy, whereas respondents from Hong Kong would show more individualistic patterns and more positively evaluate the allocator who favored merit over need. Thus, we predicted that respondents from Hong Kong would perceive that the allocator who favored merit over need acted more fairly and was more concerned with fairness principles, whereas respondents from Indonesia would present the reverse pattern. Third, we examined whether the connotations of supporting need versus merit would have different attributional implications in Hong Kong than in Indonesia. We assumed that need would be seen as the more culturally normative response in Indonesia and that merit would be seen as the more culturally normative response in Hong Kong. In line with Jones and Daviss (1965) attributional theory, we predicted that respondents from Hong Kong would perceive that an allocator acted with more choice and personal intention when he selected the less culturally sanctioned need choice, whereas respondents from Indonesia would associate greater intentionality with a merit choice. Finally, we also examined how resource context affected justice appraisals. In past justice research, there has been an emphasis on investigating situations in which only positive resources such as money or rewards are being distributed. Many justice theorists assumed that the principles found to apply in positive situations operate in a similar manner when negative resources such as cutbacks are being distributed. This may not be the case (see Griffith, 1989; Trnblom, Mhlhausen, & Jonsson, 1991). In this research, we extended understanding of positive/negative context effects by assessing these effects in two different types of cultures. We expected that respondents from both Indonesia and Hong Kong would show a similar pattern to that revealed in past research (e.g., Berman & Murphy-Berman, 1996) of positive bias toward the allocator, who was described as giving out as opposed to taking away resources. To test these hypotheses, we investigated how individuals in each of the two selected cultures perceived a hypothetical allocator who was described as having made a decision to distribute to others in a manner that favored either a needy or meritorious recipient in either a positive or negative resource context. Perceptions were defined as including respondents assessments of the fairness of the described choice, assessments of the allocators personality, perceptions of the reasons for the allocators choice, and attributional analyses of the allocation situation.

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

Murphy-Berman, Berman / CROSS-CULTURAL JUSTICE

161

METHOD
RESPONDENTS

Respondents were recruited from classes of students taking psychology courses at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Gadjah Mada University in Yogyacarta, Indonesia. The respondents in Hong Kong, who ranged in age from 18 to 22, consisted of 41 males and 60 females. The respondents in Indonesia, who ranged in age from 18 to 22, consisted of 34 males and 80 females.
MATERIALS

All study materials were translated by a native speaker in each language into Bahasa Indonesian for the Indonesian respondents and into Chinese for the respondents from Hong Kong. After the translation, the materials were then back translated into English to check for equivalency of meaning. Value and beliefs profiles. To more precisely define the Hong Kong and Indonesian samples, several measures were given to respondents prior to their work on the main vignettes used in the study. Specifically, each respondent filled out (a) the Schwartzs Value Scale (Schwartz, 1994); and (b) the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994). For the Schwartz Value Scale, respondents rated 58 value items on the degree to which each served as a guiding principle in their lives. The scale ranges from 1 to 7, with 1 indicating that the particular item is opposed to my values and 7 indicating that the item is of supreme importance to the respondent. Before respondents began rating items, they were asked to read over the entire list of represented values and choose the value most important to them and the value most opposed to their beliefs. After they indicated these two values, they were asked to go back and indicate their ratings for the rest of the values. Subsets of these values have been found to differ reliably across cultures where individualistic versus collectivistic beliefs are endorsed (Triandis, 1980). The collectivist subset consists of the following values: social order, self-discipline, social recognition, humbleness, acceptance of position in life, and preservation of public image (face). The individualist subset consists of these values: equality, freedom, a varied life, an exciting life, and enjoying life. These value subsets were summed to produce a Collectivist and an Individualist index, respectively. The alpha coefficient on the Collectivist subset was .56 for Hong Kong and .62 for Indonesia. The alpha coefficient for the Individualist subset was .54 for Hong Kong and .66 for Indonesia. The Self-Construal Scale consists of 24 items, of which 12 measure interdependent beliefs and 12 measure independent beliefs. An example of an interdependent belief item is the statement, I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact. An example of an item tapping an independent orientation is, I act the same no matter who I am with. For each item, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the presented statement on a scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). Scores were given separately for the Independence and Interdependence subscales. The alpha reliability coefficient for the Interdependence subscale was .61 for Hong Kong and .63 for Indonesia. The alpha coefficient for the Independence subscale was .60 for Hong Kong and .62 for Indonesia.

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

162

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Allocation vignettes. Following the premeasures, each respondent received one of four hypothetical distribution problems in the form of a vignette. Half of the four vignettes contained a negative allocation problem, and half contained a positive problem. In the negative problems, respondents were asked to imagine that a company manager had to decide how to distribute the equivalent in Hong Kong or Indonesian currency of U.S.$200 worth of cutbacks between two hypothetical employees. In the positive problems, respondents were asked to imagine that the manager had to distribute the equivalent in Hong Kong/Indonesian currency of U.S.$200 worth of bonus money between the two employees. No other information about the nature of the allocation situation was presented. Following this, information about two hypothetical employees was given that described a conflict between a needy and a meritorious employee. One employee was described as having average work performance but a poor financial situation and illness in the family (the need case). A second employee was described as having excellent work performance and an adequate social and economic situation (the merit case). In both cases, it was stated that both employees had 5 years of work experience and that their mean age was 31. In half of the cases, respondents were told that the hypothetical manager had decided to retain (cutback situation) or give (bonus situation) three fourths of the money to the employee who had financial difficulties and illness in the family. This decision followed the need principle. In the other half of the cases, respondents were told that the hypothetical manager had decided to give (bonus situation) or retain (cutback situation) three fourths of the money for the employee who had excellent job performance. This decision followed the merit principle. An example vignette is given below for the merit bonus condition. The same format was used in the cutback conditions, except that a cutback as opposed to a bonus was described as being distributed between the two employees.
Imagine that in a certain month a manager of a company had a bonus ($200) to be distributed between the two persons who are described below. He decided to give $150 of the bonus to employee A and $50 of the bonus to employee B. That is, he decided to increase employee As pay this month by $150 and to increase employee Bs pay by $50.
Name Employee A Employee B Current Job Performance Excellent Average Years of Job Experience 5 5 Age 31 31 Present Social and Economic Condition Adequateno serious economic or family problems Poorserious financial problems and illness in the family Bonus

$150 $50

DEPENDENT MEASURES

After they had completed reading the vignettes, respondents were asked a series of questions that addressed four general areas. Fairness ratings. To assess perceptions of fairness, two items were presented to respondents. These items assessed fairness from two perspectives. One item asked, How fair do you personally think the managers decision was? A second asked, How fair do you think others in your country would view the managers decision? Respondents answered on a 7-

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

Murphy-Berman, Berman / CROSS-CULTURAL JUSTICE

163

point scale ranging from 1 (not very fair) to 7 (very fair). The overall correlation between these two types of fairness assessments was r = .54. Reasons for allocating. Respondents were also asked to rate how much they thought six different reasons might have influenced the decision made by the allocator in the vignette. Respondents rated each of the six reasons on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not very likely to have influenced the allocators decision) to 7 (very likely to have influenced the allocators decision). The reasons were (a) expectation that now or some time in the future the allocator would gain some kind of benefit from his or her decision, (b) belief in some principle of fairness, (c) feelings of concern toward the worker to whom the allocator gave the most money, (d) feelings of concern for the overall welfare of all workers in the company, (e) feelings of duty or obligation toward the worker to whom the allocator gave the most money, and (f) the allocators relationship with the worker to whom he gave the most money. Personality traits. Respondents also rated the manager on 15 trait adjectives. These adjectives were chosen to be representative of some of the dimensions identified by Peabody (1987) as reflecting the universe of perceived personality traits. Trait adjectives were rated on a 1 to 6 scale. Warm-cold, friendly-unfriendly, and sociable-unsociable were summed to form a dimension labeled nice. Capable-incompetent, reflective-unreflective, perceptiveimperceptive, and intelligent-unintelligent were summed to form a dimension labeled smart. Stable-unstable and calm-temperamental were summed to form a dimension labeled emotional stability. Thorough-careless, orderly-disorderly, responsible-irresponsible, and practicalimpractical formed careful. Finally, independent-conforming and bold-timid formed the dimension assertive. The score ranges for each dimension were as follows: nice (3-18), smart (4-24), emotionally stable (2-12), careful (4-24), and assertive (2-12). These five dimensions were selected a priori and were based on the Big Five personality traits defined by McCrae and Costa (1986) as key dimensions of personality. Reliability or correlational analyses (when only two adjectives constituted a dimension) were performed to assess whether items selected for each of the five dimensions showed adequate internal consistency. The results were (a) nice, alpha = .81; (b) smart, alpha = .75; (c) emotionally stable, r = .37, p < .000; (d) careful, alpha = .70; and (e) assertive, r = .36, p < .000. These reliability patterns were within similar ranges when examined for each culture independently. Attributions. For the attributional items, respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they thought the way the manager distributed resources (a) told them something about the kind of person the manager is, and (b) was a personal choice as opposed to being a decision determined by the situation. The first question was answered on a scale ranging from 1 (the managers decision tells you nothing about the kind of person the manager is) to 7 (the managers decision tells you a great deal about the kind of person the manager is). The second question was answered on a scale ranging from 1 (completely determined by the situation) to 7 (completely determined by personal choice).
PROCEDURE

Respondents were administered materials in groups. First, all respondents filled out the prescale value and belief profile items. Then they were told that they would be given information concerning an allocation problem and a description of how a hypothetical male

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

164

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

manager had decided to solve the problem. They were told that after they finished reading the problem, they would be asked to indicate their reactions to the manager on a variety of different dimensions. It was stated that we realized that they did not have much information about the decision, but that people are frequently called on to analyze other peoples actions even when they do not have much data about them. Following this, respondents rated the managers possible reasons for making his decision, their perceptions of his personality traits, their ratings of how fair they and others would perceive his decision to be, their attributions about why he made the decision he did, and their assessments of who would most benefit or be harmed by the decision. The last questions in the packet asked respondents to fill out information relevant to four demographic questions concerning their age, gender, rural versus urban living status, and political orientation.

RESULTS
VALUE AND BELIEF PROFILE RESULTS

Self-Construal Scale. To more precisely define these specific samples and to verify that they differ in ways predicted by the research in these cultures (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al., 1993), each respondent completed the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994) and the Schwartz Value Inventory (Schwartz, 1994). Cultural differences in responses to the SelfConstrual Scale were assessed by performing a mixed model ANOVA with one within factor (interdependent vs. independent scores) and one between factor (culture: Indonesia vs. Hong Kong). To be consistent with previous research, respondents from Indonesia should show a preference for interdependence, whereas those from Hong Kong should be more conflicted and show a preference for neither one; that is, there should be an interaction between culture and interdependence/independence. The results showed that this interaction was indeed significant, F(1, 214) = 35.2, p < .001, and in the expected direction. Specifically, Indonesians rated interdependence (M = 65.57) significantly higher than independence (M = 58.30), whereas respondents from Hong Kong rated both equally (interdependent M = 54.43, independent M = 54.51). Schwartzs Value Inventory. A similar mixed-model ANOVA with one within factor (individualism vs. collectivism) and one between factor (culture: Indonesia vs. Hong Kong) was also performed to assess whether there were differences across cultures on the Triandis individualism/collectivism scores from Schwartzs Value Inventory. Here again, we expected to see an interaction of culture and individualism/collectivism. The results showed that this interaction was significant, F (1, 216) = 27.90, p < .001, and it was generally in the predicted direction. Specifically, as expected, Indonesians rated individualism (M = 4.45) lower than collectivism (M = 4.86). Respondents from Hong Kong, rather than rating the two dimensions similarly as expected, rated individualism (M = 4.60) higher than collectivism (M = 4.21).
TESTS OF PREDICTIONS

To test the research predictions, 2 (type of allocation: merit vs. need) 2 (allocation context: positive vs. negative) 2 (culture: Hong Kong vs. Indonesia) ANOVAs were performed. A MANOVA was also performed on each of the four dependent variable sets: These

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

Murphy-Berman, Berman / CROSS-CULTURAL JUSTICE

165

results, however, did not add to the interpretation of the data, and only the univariate results are reported below. Because no gender main or interaction effects were found for any of the dependent variable dimensions, female and male data were combined. Predicted areas of cultural agreement: Main effect of type of allocation. On several different dimensions, the effects of the two manipulated variables were predicted to be similar in Hong Kong and Indonesia. First, it was predicted that respondents from both Indonesia and Hong Kong would perceive that the allocator who favored need acted for more compassionate and less selfish reasons than the allocator who favored merit. It was also predicted that a need allocator would be seen as a nicer person than a merit allocator. Confirmation of such predictions would be indicated by main effects of type of allocation but no interactions with culture. These predictions were confirmed by the pattern of data obtained. The ANOVA indicated that respondents perceived that the allocator who endorsed need versus merit acted significantly more because of his concern for the overall welfare of all the workers, F(1, 208) = 21.61, p < .001 (M for need = 4.33, M for merit = 3.19); and because of his concern for the welfare of the specific allocation recipient, F(1, 208) = 17.70, p < .001 (M for need = 4.51, M for merit = 3.53); but significantly less because of his desire for self gain, F(1, 208) = 11.67, p < .001 (M for need = 3.82, M for merit = 4.31). Furthermore, as expected, the respondents ratings of the allocators degree of niceness, F(1, 208) = 129.55, p < .001, was greater for the allocator who endorsed need (M = 16.09) than the allocator who endorsed merit (M = 12.19). Predicted area of cultural agreement: Main effect of type of resource context. Respondents from both Hong Kong and Indonesia were expected to more positively evaluate the allocator who gave out resources than the allocator who distributed a resource cutback. This prediction was supported in the pattern of effects obtained. The ANOVA revealed significant differences in respondents rating of allocator niceness, F(1, 208) = 10.47, p < .001; and carefulness, F(1, 208) = 4.11, p < .04, across the positive and negative resource contexts. The means for niceness over the positive and negative context were 14.60 and 13.60, respectively. The means for carefulness over these two contexts were 15.53 and 14.45, respectively. Respondents from Indonesia and Hong Kong also perceived that the allocator who gave out resources, as opposed to the one who took resources away, was significantly more concerned about the welfare of the allocation recipient, F(1, 208) = 13.52, p < .001 (M for positive resources = 4.42, M for negative resources = 3.57); and was more motivated by duty or obligation, F(1, 208) = 6.67, p < .010 (M for positive resources = 4.34, M for negative resources = 3.72). Predicted area of cultural disagreement: Interaction of culture by type of allocation. On several types of appraisals, respondents from Hong Kong and Indonesia were expected to differ in their pattern of responses. Specifically, respondents from Hong Kong were expected to perceive that the allocator acted more fairly and was more influenced by some justice principle when a merit versus a need allocation was chosen, whereas the reverse was predicted for respondents from Indonesia. These predictions were tested by examining the direction of effects for the interaction of culture by type of allocation on the fairness items and on principle as a reason for allocating. The pattern of results obtained was consistent with predictions. The ANOVA revealed that the interaction was significant both for respondents own fairness appraisals, F(1, 208) = 21.98, p < .001, and for their ratings of how fair they thought

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

166

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Culture by Type of Allocation Interactions
Indonesia Merit Dependent Variable Fairness rating You feel fair Others feel fair Reasons for allocating Principle of fairness Personality ratings Allocator careful Allocator stable Allocator nice Attributions Behavior guided by choice M SD M Need SD M Merit SD M Hong Kong Need SD

1.97 1.92 3.95 14.40 6.94 12.21 4.56

1.51 1.45 2.06 4.45 2.46 2.15 1.78

3.30 2.85 4.46 15.33 7.50 15.15 4.08

1.61 1.64 1.67 3.88 2.12 2.57 1.81

3.43 3.34 5.51 15.59 8.13 12.17 3.73

1.32 1.16 1.42 3.23 2.32 2.39 1.43

2.94 2.88 4.56 14.65 7.00 17.12 4.76

1.38 1.19 1.85 2.94 1.51 3.17 1.51

others in their culture would rate the allocator, F(1, 208) = 13.96, p < .001. As can be seen in Table 1, when the allocator favored merit, respondents from Hong Kong rated this as being more fair on both fairness items than when the allocator favored need; the reverse was found for the respondents from Indonesia. Second, there was a significant interaction in the predicted direction for Culture Type of Allocation on respondentsperceptions of the degree that the allocator acted because of some fairness principle, F(1, 208) = 9.46, p < .001. This effect revealed that when the allocator favored merit, respondents from Hong Kong thought he was significantly more influenced by some principle of fairness than when he favored need. Respondents from Indonesia showed the reverse pattern of effects. Table 1 displays the means for this interaction. There were also significant Culture Type of Allocation interactions on respondentsrating of the allocators personality. Although not specifically predicted, the pattern supports the general theoretical framework. Table 1 shows that respondents from Hong Kong perceived that the allocator who favored the meritorious was seen as being more careful, F(1, 208) = 3.78, p < .05, and more emotionally stable, F(1, 208) = 8.22, p < .005, than the allocator who favored the needy, whereas the respondents from Indonesia showed the reverse pattern. Respondents both from Hong Kong and Indonesia, however, perceived that the allocator who favored the needy was nicer, F(1, 208) = 8.99, p < .003, than the allocator who favored the meritorious, with this pattern being even more pronounced for the respondents from Hong Kong. Thus, once again, Indonesian respondents were more consistent in their positive appraisal of the need allocator, whereas respondents from Hong Kong were more mixed in their evaluations. Finally, cultural differences were expected in how respondents from Hong Kong and Indonesia would perceive degrees of personal intentionality associated with the use of a merit versus a need strategy. Specifically, we predicted that perceptions of allocator intention would be greater for respondents from Hong Kong when a need strategy was chosen, whereas for respondents from Indonesia, greater intentionality would be associated with a merit choice. This prediction was tested by examining the pattern of data in the interaction of

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

Murphy-Berman, Berman / CROSS-CULTURAL JUSTICE

167

Culture Type of Allocation on the two attribution items. This interaction was significant in the predicted direction for perception of the amount of choice the allocator was judged to have, F(1, 208) = 11.57, p < .001. As can be seen by an examination of the means in Table 1, perception of personal choice was greater for respondents from Hong Kong when need was favored and greater for respondents from Indonesia when merit was favored. There were several other significant main and interaction effects obtained, but they were not related to the main hypothesis of the study; nor did they form a coherent pattern. Thus, they will not be discussed further.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this article was to examine how individuals perceive distributive justice in two different Asian cultures, Hong Kong and Indonesia. Both cultures have often been defined as being collectivist in orientation. However, as Triandis (1995) has asserted, collectivism is not a monolithic concept, and within collectivist societies, considerable differences can exist. Indonesia and Hong Kong appear to be cultures that demonstrate this point and show an interesting pattern of variations within an overall collectivist framework. These cultural differences were confirmed in the pattern of the respondents scores on the Schwartz Value Scale (Schwartz, 1994) and the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994). Whereas the scores of the Indonesian respondents on these measures showed rather consistent preferences for more interdependent and collectivist values and beliefs, the responses of the Hong Kong respondents revealed a more mixed pattern. These differences in cultural beliefs are reflected in the patterns of findings obtained concerning how respondents from the two cultures analyzed the presented distributive justice dilemmas. It was hypothesized that respondents in Hong Kong, more than respondents from Indonesia, would show a rather mixed and conflicted justice construal pattern with pulls toward both individualistic and collectivistic orientations. That is, in fact, what we found when we examined individuals responses to the justice vignettes. For instance, even though the respondents from Hong Kong felt that the allocation strategy that was most fair (merit) was additionally the most principled, they also perceived that this choice showed the most concern with self-gain and the least concern with worker welfare. Furthermore, Hong Kong respondents also perceived the allocator who supported merit, which is an individualist response, as being less nice but more careful and emotionally stable than the allocator who supported need. This dilemma between what was seen as fair and principled and what was seen as kind was not evident in the justice appraisals for the respondents from Indonesia. Rather, they perceived that the allocator who favored the needy acted in a fairer manner than the allocator who favored the meritorious. They also perceived that this allocator was nicer and more concerned with worker welfare and possessed more positive personality traits than the allocator who favored the meritorious. Thus, the Indonesians did not split their judgments of acting justly and acting compassionately. It was suggested at the start of the article that research on distributive justice typically has not examined the ways in which culture affects the perceived relationship between appraisals of fairness versus perceptions of compassion. The present findings suggest that culture may, indeed, influence not only the criteria used to evaluate what is fair but also the degree to which what is seen as fair is additionally seen as good and kind.

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

168

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

These findings support what has been labeled the conflict model of distributive justice (e.g., Lansberg, 1984; Trnblom, 1988). Using this framework, one examines the range of conflicts among various justice principles that are perceived to exist in different situations. This study suggests that it may be fruitful also to look at conflicts among the expected justice consequences following decisions based on different types of justice principles and to assess how culture may affect the degree of congruence or incongruence perceived to exist across these expected consequences. Individuals in two different cultures, for instance, might define a particular justice principle as being equally fair in a situation but differ in their expectations of the broader social, interpersonal, and instrumental impact of implementing this principle. Thus, acting in ways that are consistent with different types of justice norms may be easier and less conflict-laden in some cultural contexts than others. Cultural differences flowing from different normative beliefs also appear to exist not only in how the consequences of particular justice choices were analyzed but also in how the antecedents of such choices were interpreted. For instance, respondents from Indonesia perceived that the allocator was acting more on the basis of personal choice and less because of situational pressures when a merit choice was used; respondents from Hong Kong perceived that personal choice was greater when a need strategy was used. These differences may have reflected different interpretations of the pressures involved in making merit- and need-based allocations in the two cultures. That is, respondents from Indonesia may have perceived that the merit-based choice was less normatively sanctioned and thus more informative about the allocators underlying disposition than the need-based choice, whereas the opposite may have been true for respondents from Hong Kong (see Jones & Davis, 1965). Another way to examine the Culture Type of Allocation interaction is to look at ratings within each of the allocation conditions. That is, one can ask the question of whether the magnitude of cultural differences was similar for perceptions of the allocator who favored need or merit. The pattern of data revealed that whereas respondents from Hong Kong generally appraised the use of merit in a more positive manner than did the respondents from Indonesia, individuals from these two cultures differed little in their perceptions of the use of need. Thus, cultural disagreement was greater for respondents perceptions of the appropriateness of the use of one type of allocation strategy than it was for another type of strategy. This again points to the necessity of examining cultural effects broadly and looking at patterns of response consensus or lack of consensus across multiple dimensions rather than focusing only on differences in single-item type assessments. A final question raised was how and if the positive or negative nature of the resource context would alter respondentsperceptions of the allocator. These results suggest that resource context did appear to color appraisals. Specifically, respondents from both Indonesia and Hong Kong showed some evidence of a type of fundamental attribution error (Nisbett & Ross, 1989) in their perceptions; that is, they rated the allocator who distributed rewards more positively on several personality trait dimensions than the allocator who distributed cutbacks, even though the reason rewards or cutbacks had to be given out was left ambiguous in the vignettes. This study demonstrates that it can be profitable to look at cultural variations in justice thinking from a multidimensional perspective. One cannot assert that certain cultures simply favor merit or endorse need. Rather, we must ask on what dimensions and in what contexts cultural differences emerge. We also need to examine how these differences might relate to the complex patterns of values and beliefs existing within cultures. Most justice decisions are probably not construed as being simply all right or all wrong. Rather, ideas of fairness may often involve notions of compromise and complex considerations of both expected positives

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

Murphy-Berman, Berman / CROSS-CULTURAL JUSTICE

169

and negatives. It is in these more complex construals that the impact of culture may best be revealed.

REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Ali, J. (1992). Islamic work ethic. Journal of Psychology, 126, 507-519. Batson, C. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 603610. Berman, J., & Murphy-Berman, V. (1996). Cultural differences in perceptions of allocators of resources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 494-509. Bontempo, R., & Rivero, J. C. (1992). Cultural variation in cognition: The role of self-concept in the attitude behavior link. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as a basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structure of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New York: Free Press. Frederick, W. H., & Worden, R. L. (1992). Indonesia: A country study. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Federal Research Division. Greenberg, J. (1981). The justice of distributing scarce and abundant resources. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 289-316). New York: Plenum. Griffith, W. I. (1989). The allocation of negative outcomes: Examining the issues. In E. E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 107-137). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Ho, D.Y.-F., Hong, Y. Y. & Chiu, C.-Y. (1989). Filial piety and family matrimonial traditionalism in Chinese society. Paper presented at the International Conference on Moral Values and Moral Reasoning in Chinese Societies, Taipei, Taiwan. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). A theory of correspondent inferences: From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press. Koentjaraningrat, K. (1985). Javenese culture. London: Oxford University Press. Lansberg, I. (1984). Hierarchy as a mediator of fairness: A contingency approach to distributive justice in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 124-135. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 131-151. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Clinical assessments can benefit from recent advances in personality psychology. American Psychologist, 41, 1001-1003. Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 133-149. Miller, J. (1991). A cultural perspective on the morality of beneficence and interpersonal responsibility. In S. TingToomey & F. Forsenny (Eds.). Interpersonal and intercultural communication annual (Vol. 15, pp. 11-23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Murphy-Berman, V., & Berman, J. (1999). Perceptions of allocators who make merit versus need-based allocation choices: The allocators dilemma. Unpublished manuscript, University of NebraskaLincoln. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1989). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pareek, U. (1988). Culture and development: The case of Indonesia. In D. Singha & H. Koa (Eds.), Social values and development: Asian perspectives (pp. 55-73). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 59-71. Reis, H. (1981). Self presentation and distributive justice. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 269-291). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagisibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85-119). London: Sage. Schwinger, T. (1980). Just allocation of goods: Decisions among three principles. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 95-125). New York: Springer-Verlag. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009

170

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Trnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocations: A typology and a model for conflicting justice principles. In E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 5, pp. 141-168). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Trnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. Scherer (Ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 177-237). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Trnblom, K. Y., Mhlhausen, S. M., & Jonsson, D. R. (1991). The allocation of positive and negative outcomes: When is the equality principle fair for both? In R. Vermunt & H. Steensma (Eds.), Social justice in human relations (Vol. 1, pp. 59-100). New York: Plenum. Triandis, H. (1980). Values, attitudes and interpersonal behavior. In H. E. Howe & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 196-260). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. San Francisco: Westview. Triandis, H., McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S., Leung, K., Solazar, J. M., et al. (1993). An etic-emic analysis of individualism/collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 366-383. Tyler, T., Boeckmann, R., Smith, H., & Huo, Y. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview. Walster, E., Walster, G., & Bersheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Yang, K.-S. (1986). Chinese personality and change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 479-584). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Virginia Murphy-Berman received her Ph.D. in psychology from Northwestern University in Chicago. Currently, she is a visiting professor in the Psychology Department of Skidmore College. Her main research interests are cross-cultural differences in perceptions of fairness and childrens rights. John J. Berman received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University. He is currently a professor of psychology at Skidmore College. Dr. Bermans main research interests focus on cross-cultural studies of social justice.

Downloaded from http://jcc.sagepub.com by thobagus Nu'man on October 16, 2009