Game Of The Egoistic And Justice: The Effect Of Justice Sensitivity, Belief In A Just World On Allocation Decisions

Justice sensitivity reflects the individual perception of the injustice and behavior responses and ischaracterized as an independent, stable personal trait, which can be conceived as the explicit justicemotive to investigate people’s cognition and response towards justice. The faith of the worldwide justiceis the belief that the world is just, orderly and controllable, which help people fully convince that they canget what they deserve in this world. Justice sensitivity is an indirect indicator of justice motive. Allocationdecision is one of the typical examples of the specific reaction towards justice. The research performed byUmlauft (2009) studies has shown that allocation decisions are able to be illustrated by justice motive inrighteous world and explicit justice motive. Game experiments for simulating distribution scenario, areusually applied to evaluate justice motivation behind the behavior of the participants.Therefore, the game experiments are suitable for the study of the allocation decisions. Moreover, theresearch of justice sensitivity in our country is still in the initial stage and related cross-cultural research isrelatively rare. The current research on faith of just world mainly focuses on subjective well-being,self-esteem, self-respect, attitude, etc., the importance of research on justice decision behavior is lessattached. In this study, the research on evaluation of the impacts from decision distribution on justicesensitivity and faith of just world is carried on through experiments conducted by theory such asultimatum game, dictator game, the mixed game of ultimatum game and dictator game.Firstly, we revised the justice Sensitivity Scale compiled by Schmitt et al.(2005) through methodssuch as used exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. After two experiments beingconducted, the formal justice sensitivity scale is eventually determined, including four dimensions and the19projects. Based on the results of justice sensitivity scale, on the basis of the results accessed from thescale of personal belief and general belief on just world, experiment one used the ultimatum game anddictator game experiment to examine the influence of justice sensitivity on proponent’s decision-making,and experiment two used the ultimatum game, the mixed game of ultimatum game and dictator game toexamine the effects of justice sensitivity, belief on just world to respondents’ decision-making. Theconclusions were drawn as following: First, the structure of justice sensitivity includes four dimensions: victim sensitivity, observersensitivity, perpetrator sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity. The justice sensitivity model is promising tofit the psychometric requirements on reliability, validity. Justice sensitivity model is relatively good, ofwhich reliability and validity have reached the requirements of psychometrics.Second, it shows that the gender and experimental sequence had no effects on games experiment. Thedifference is obvious between ultimatum game and dictator game, ultimatum game and mixed game.Compared with the ultimatum game, the proposal in dictator game is more inclined to distributed in ainjustice way，and more participants were willing to accept injustice distribution in mixed game.Third, in the dictator game, the proposal with high perpetrator sensitivity and belief on world just willbe more inclined to justice distribution, and proponents with high sensitivity of being victims will be moreinclined to the injustice distribution. And the general belief on righteous world can predict and explain thejustice distribution in the dictator game.Fourth, in the ultimatum and dictator mixed game, the respondents with high sensitivity of perpetratortend to accept the justice distribution, and the proposal with high just world beliefs are more inclined toaccept a injustice distribution. The respondents accepted equitable distribution predicted by the perpetratorsensitivity, and whether respondents accept the injustice distribution still require personal beliefs on justworld to predict.