Justice sensitivity and in-group bias in assesment of injustice: A social psychological model

The concept of justice and being fair has been a subject that has been thought, discussed and studied by different disciplines throughout the history of humanity. Social psychologists examine justice on the basis of people's circumstances, the realities they perceive in the face of unfair situations, and their emotional and behavioral responses to these situations (Hegtvedt, 2020; Kazemi & Törnblom, 2008). In this study, reactions to unfair events or situations were investigated through justice sensitivity (victim x observer x perpetrator), group effect (ingroup x outgroup), intergroup empathy, group identification and moral disengagement mechanisms. The preliminary study was carried out by asking open-ended questions to a total of 280 participants from different ethnic and religious groups living in Turkey about the unfair events and situations they experienced on the basis of their identities. As a result of examining the pre-study data with thematic analysis, the most frequently mentioned unfair events/situations were selected with the help of 3 experts, and then attitude statements representing each group were formed by using moral disengagement mechanisms. In the main study, a total of 945 participants from different ethnic (Turkish, Kurdish, Arab) and belief (Sunni, Alevi, non-Muslim) groups living in different provinces of Turkey were given attitude statements including moral disengagement mechanisms, moral disengagements scale group form of justice sensitivity scale, intergroup empathy scale and group identification scale were conducted face to face. The findings show that the reactions to unfair events and situations in both belief and ethnic groups differ according to their groups and outgroups. The results of the study show that intergroup empathy and group identification have moderation effect and dimensions of justice sensitivity predict moral disengagement behavior. The results of the research were discussed in the literature and the strengths of the study, contributions to the literature, limitations and suggestions for future studies.