Cross‐cultural comparison of engagement in ultimate and immanent justice reasoning.

ETHICS; ETHICAL decision making; SOCIAL justice; PSYCHOLOGY; CULTURAL pluralism; ETHNOLOGY research; SURVEYS; QUESTIONNAIRES; THEORY; HYPOTHESIS; FACTOR analysis

We investigated direct cross‐cultural differences in individuals' immanent and ultimate justice reasoning about others' misfortunes, focusing on deservingness as a mediating variable. Participants from the United States and Japan read a scenario describing a subject's misfortune. The target subject's moral worth was manipulated as that of a respected person or a thief. After reading the scenario, participants completed questionnaires containing items on immanent and ultimate justice reasoning as well as deservingness of receiving the misfortune and of future restitution. The analysis revealed that Japanese respondents tended to engage more in immanent justice reasoning than did American respondents when the target subject was of low moral worth, while American participants overall engaged more in ultimate justice reasoning compared with Japanese. Our hypotheses on the mediation effect of deservingness on the relationship between country and justice reasoning were partly supported. These findings suggest that an exploration of cultural differences in justice reasoning, incorporating the role of deservingness, can contribute to extending and strengthening the theory of justice reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Asian Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)