IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0281021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:395-396 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    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. 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.
    7. 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. 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..
    2. 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.
    3. Jiawen Huang & Yitong Fang, 2021. "Income Inequality, Neighbourhood Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being in China: Exploration of a Moderating Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Traub, Stefan & Schwaninger, Manuel & Paetzel, Fabian & Neuhofer, Sabine, 2023. "Evidence on need-sensitive giving behavior: An experimental approach to the acknowledgment of needs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    5. Samuelson Appau & Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Russell Smyth & Quanda Zhang, 2022. "Social Capital Inequality and Subjective Wellbeing of Older Chinese," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 541-563, April.
    6. Andreas Kuhn, 2016. "The Subversive Nature of Inequality: Subjective Inequality Perceptions and Attitudes to Social Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 6023, CESifo.
    7. Haiyang Lu & Peishan Tong & Rong Zhu, 2020. "Longitudinal Evidence on Social Trust and Happiness in China: Causal Effects and Mechanisms," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 1841-1858, June.
    8. Paul Hufe & Ravi Kanbur & Andreas Peichlifo, 2022. "Measuring Unfair Inequality: Reconciling Equality of Opportunity and Freedom from Poverty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(6), pages 3345-3380.
    9. D'Ambrosio, Conchita & Clark, Andrew E. & Barazzetta, Marta, 2018. "Unfairness at work: Well-being and quits," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 307-316.
    10. Clément, Matthieu & Piaser, Lucie, 2021. "Do inequalities predict fear of crime? Empirical evidence from Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    11. John Knight & Ramani Gunatilaka, 2023. "The Quality of Society and Happiness: Fairness, Trust, and Community in China," Economics Series Working Papers 1000, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Zhang, Quanda & Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa, 2020. "Income inequality and subjective wellbeing: Panel data evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    13. Sanqin Mao & Jie Chen, 2021. "Neighborhood-Based Social Capital and Depressive Symptoms among Adults: Evidence from Guangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, October.
    14. John Knight & Ramani Gunatilaka, 2024. "The Quality of Society and Happiness: Fairness, Trust, and Community in China," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Andreas Kuhn, 2020. "The individual (mis-)perception of wage inequality: measurement, correlates and implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2039-2069, November.
    16. Florian Baumgarten, 2023. "Diffuse Gefühle: Wie Einkommensunterschiede in Österreich bewertet werden," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 49(1), pages 61-90.
    17. Ali Bokhari & Farahnaz Sharifi, 2024. "Public Transport Inequality and Utilization: Exploring the Perspective of the Inequality Impact on Travel Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, June.
    18. Clark, Andrew E. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2014. "Attitudes to Income Inequality: Experimental and Survey Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Marina Alexandra Tudoran & Laurențiu Gabriel Țîru & Alexandru Neagoe, 2024. "Can We Measure Social Justice? Development and Initial Validation of a Tool Measuring Social Justice Through Values," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-18, November.
    20. Marina Chugunova & Wolfgang J. Luhan, 2022. "Ruled by robots: Preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2022-03, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.

    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.