IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0281021.html

Justice Evaluation of the Income Distribution (JEID): Development and validation of a short scale for the subjective assessment of objective differences in earnings

Author

Listed:
  • Désirée Nießen
  • Jule Adriaans
  • Stefan Liebig
  • Clemens M Lechner

Abstract

Justice evaluations are proposed to provide a link between the objective level of inequality and the consequences at the individual and societal level. Available instruments, however, focus on the subjective perception of inequality and income distributions. In light of findings that subjective perceptions of inequality and income levels can be biased and subject to method effects, we present the newly developed Justice Evaluation of the Income Distribution (JEID) Scale, which captures justice evaluations of the actual earnings distribution. JEID comprises five items that provide respondents with earnings information for five groups at different segments along the distribution of earnings in a given country. We provide a German-language and an English-language version of the scale. The German-language version was developed and validated based on three comprehensive heterogeneous quota samples from Germany; the translated English-language version was validated in one comprehensive heterogeneous quota sample from the UK. Using latent profile analysis and k-means clustering, we identified three typical response patterns, which we labeled “inequality averse,” “bottom-inequality averse,” and “status quo justification.” JEID was found to be related to normative orientations in the sense that egalitarian views were associated with stronger injustice evaluations at the bottom and top ends of the earnings distribution. With a completion time of between 1.50 and 2.75 min, the JEID scale can be applied in any self-report survey in the social sciences to investigate the distribution, precursors, and consequences of individuals’ subjective evaluations of objective differences in earnings.

Suggested Citation

  • Désirée Nießen & Jule Adriaans & Stefan Liebig & Clemens M Lechner, 2023. "Justice Evaluation of the Income Distribution (JEID): Development and validation of a short scale for the subjective assessment of objective differences in earnings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281021
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281021&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0281021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simone Schneider, 2012. "Income Inequality and its Consequences for Life Satisfaction: What Role do Social Cognitions Play?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 106(3), pages 419-438, May.
    2. Sebastian Hülle & Stefan Liebig & Meike Janina May, 2018. "Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 663-692, April.
    3. Ziano, Ignazio & Lembregts, Christophe & Pandelaere, Mario, 2022. "People weigh salaries more than ratios in judgments of income inequality, fairness, and demands for redistribution," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Diermeier, Matthias & Goecke, Henry & Niehues, Judith & Thomas, Tobias, 2017. "Impact of inequality-related media coverage on the concerns of the citzens," DICE Discussion Papers 258, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    5. Eriksson, Kimmo & Simpson, Brent, 2013. "The available evidence suggests the percent measure should not be used to study inequality: Reply to Norton and Ariely," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 395-396, May.
    6. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    7. Jiawen Huang, 2019. "Income Inequality, Distributive Justice Beliefs, and Happiness in China: Evidence from a Nationwide Survey," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 83-105, February.
    8. Kimmo Eriksson & Brent Simpson, 2013. "The available evidence suggests the percent measure should not be used to study inequality: Reply to Norton and Ariely," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 395-396, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kuhn, Andreas, 2015. "The Subversive Nature of Inequality: Subjective Inequality Perceptions and Attitudes to Social Inequality," IZA Discussion Papers 9406, IZA Network @ LISER.
    2. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Andreas Kuhn, 2016. "The Subversive Nature of Inequality: Subjective Inequality Perceptions and Attitudes to Social Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 6023, CESifo.
    4. Teresa María García Muñoz & Juliette Milgram Baleix & Omar Odeh Odeh, 2022. "System Justification Beliefs and Life Satisfaction. The role of inequality aversion and support for redistribution," ThE Papers 22/15, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    5. Andreas Kuhn, 2020. "The individual (mis-)perception of wage inequality: measurement, correlates and implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2039-2069, November.
    6. Jon M. Jachimowicz & Shai Davidai & Daniela Goya‐Tocchetto & Barnabas Szaszi & Martin V. Day & Stephanie J. Tepper & L. Taylor Phillips & M. Usman Mirza & Nailya Ordabayeva & Oliver P. Hauser, 2023. "Inequality in researchers’ minds: Four guiding questions for studying subjective perceptions of economic inequality," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1534-1561, December.
    7. Domènech-Arumí, Gerard, 2025. "Neighborhoods, perceived Inequality, and preferences for Redistribution: Evidence from Barcelona," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    8. Vladimir Karacharovskiy & Elena Vakulenko, 2021. "Approaches to measuring the shadow price of individual wage mobility channels," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 61, pages 62-88.
    9. Kuhn, Andreas, 2019. "The subversive nature of inequality: Subjective inequality perceptions and attitudes to social inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 331-344.
    10. Bohmann, Sandra & Kalleitner, Fabian, 2023. "Subjective Inequity Aversion: Unfair Inequality, Subjective Well-Being, and Preferences for Redistribution," SocArXiv g8arw, Center for Open Science.
    11. Kuhn, Andreas, 2015. "The Individual Perception of Wage Inequality: A Measurement Framework and Some Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 9579, IZA Network @ LISER.
    12. Benjamin Schalembier, 2019. "An Evaluation of Common Explanations for the Impact of Income Inequality on Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 777-794, March.
    13. Corneo, Giacomo & Fong, Christina M., 2008. "What's the monetary value of distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 289-308, February.
    14. Gabrieli, Tommaso, "undated". "Beliefs And Redistributive Politics Under Incomplete Information," Economic Research Papers 269770, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    15. Khanh Duong, 2024. "Is meritocracy just? New evidence from Boolean analysis and Machine learning," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1795-1821, October.
    16. Silva,Joana C. G. & Morgandi,Matteo & Levin,Victoria, 2016. "Trust in government and support for redistribution," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7675, The World Bank.
    17. European Commission, 2013. "Tax reforms in EU Member States - Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability – 2013 Report," Taxation Papers 38, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    18. Buechel, Berno & Krähenmann, Philemon, 2022. "Fixed price equilibria on peer‐to‐peer platforms: Lessons from time‐based currencies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 335-358.
    19. Santos, Daniel V. & Afonso, Oscar & Vasconcelos, Paulo B., 2025. "Individualism, innovation, and inequality: Exploring the nexus," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    20. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.