An English-Language adaptation and validation of the Justice Sensitivity Short Scales-8 (JSS-8).

The construct of justice sensitivity has four perspectives that capture individual differences in the strength of reactions to injustice when becoming a victim of injustice (victim sensitivity), when witnessing injustice as an outsider (observer sensitivity), when passively benefitting from an injustice done to others (beneficiary sensitivity), or when committing an injustice (perpetrator sensitivity). Individual differences in these four justice sensitivity perspectives are highly relevant in moral research. With just eight items in total, the Justice Sensitivity Short Scales-8 (JSS-8) are a very efficient way to measure the four perspectives. JSS-8 was initially constructed in German (Ungerechtigkeitssensibilität-Skalen-8, USS-8) and later translated into English. In the present study, we empirically validated this English-language adaptation in a heterogeneous quota sample from the UK. The results show that the psychometric properties (i.e., reliability, validity, standardization) of JSS-8 are good, and that they are comparable with those of the German-language source version. Because of the invariance of loadings, intercepts, and residual variances, researchers can compare manifest scale statistics (i.e., means, variances) of JSS-8 across the UK and Germany. JSS-8 is thus particularly suitable for measuring justice sensitivity in various research areas with constraints on assessment time and questionnaire space.

"Proof Under Reasonable Doubt": Ambiguity of the Norm Violation as Boundary Condition of Third-Party Punishment.

In six studies, we consistently observed costly third-party punishment (3PP) to decrease under ambiguity of the norm violation. Our research suggests that, under ambiguity, some people experience concerns about punishing unfairly. Those with higher (vs. lower) other-oriented justice sensitivity (Observer JS) reduced 3PP more pronouncedly (in Studies 1-3 and 4b, but not replicated in Studies 4-5). Moreover, those who decided to resolve the ambiguity (hence, removing the risk of punishing unfairly) exceeded the 3PP observed under no ambiguity (Study 4). However, we did not consistently observe these concerns about punishing unfairly to affect 3PP (Studies 4-5). We further considered whether people could use ambiguity as justification for remaining passive-thus, avoiding the costs of 3PP. We did not find conclusive evidence supporting this notion. Taken together, ambiguity entails a situational boundary of 3PP that sheds light on the prevalence of this behavior and, potentially, on its preceding decision-making.

Measuring four perspectives of justice sensitivity with two items each.

People differ systematically in their vulnerability to injustice. We present two-item scales for the efficient measurement of justice sensitivity from 4 perspectives (victim, observer, beneficiary, perpetrator). In Study 1 using a quota-based sample of German adults, a latent state-trait analysis revealed the factorial validity and high reliabilities of the scales. In Study 2 employing a large random sample, we tested for measurement invariance of the items within the context of our short 2-item scales compared to the original 10-item scales. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that the validity of the indicators and the internal structure of the assessed constructs did not change across item contexts. In both studies, correlations with personality dimensions and life satisfaction provide evidence for the validity of our scales. With the presented instrument, future research can extend scientific knowledge regarding the role of individual differences in reactions to injustice for the explanation of well-being and physical health.