Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparing direct and indirect measures of just rewards: what have we learned?
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Centre for the Study of Cultural Evolution. Mälardalen University, Sweden.
2012 (English)In: Sociological Methods & Research, ISSN 0049-1241, E-ISSN 1552-8294, Vol. 41, no 1, p. 240-245Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

1. Jasso argued that her indirect method for inferring just rewards ispreferable to direct methods because the former is less susceptibleto biases. We pointed out that this claim was merely speculative andthat old and new evidence show both methods to be susceptible tosevere biases.

2. Results from our research found that the two methods were uncorre-lated over the identical set of stimuli, and hence at least one of themethods must be very unreliable. Of the two methods, only the indi-rect method inferred just rewards that were implausibly extreme, astrong indication that it is the less reliable. This was evident inresults that Jasso reported in 2008 but did not address at that time.

3. Direct and indirect methods both must assume that respondents havein mind just rewards for practically any set of contextual factors. This assumption is both unproven and implausible. The alternativeassumption is that respondents use contextual cues to help them ren-der fairness judgments but, as a consequence, their judgments arebiased by those cues.

4. We noted that anchoring theory specifies conditions for the occur-rence of biases due to the presence of anchor information in thejudgment context. These conditions are satisfied in Jasso’s vignettemethod. Predictably, results both from prior research and from ournew research indicated strong anchoring biases for both direct andindirect justice vignette measures.

5. The indirect method uses a statistical model whose specification dif-fers from the theoretical model that it ostensibly implements. Thisspecification error introduces biases of its own

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 41, no 1, p. 240-245
National Category
Social Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-80136DOI: 10.1177/0049124112448361ISI: 000305627700009OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-80136DiVA, id: diva2:553008
Available from: 2012-09-17 Created: 2012-09-12 Last updated: 2018-04-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eriksson, Kimmo
By organisation
Centre for the Study of Cultural Evolution
In the same journal
Sociological Methods & Research
Social Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 18 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf