論文

This article reviews the literature on social justice with an emphasis on the subjective properties of justice. The author contends that there are four major perspectives for understanding past research into the history of justice and its future directions: a) the antecedents of justice which identify the criteria and factors of perceptions of fairness, b) the consequences of justice which focus on the effect of fairness perceptions on individual responses, c) the motives for justice which discuss why people are sensitive to fairness, and d) the concerns of justice that highlight the internal and/or external conditions driving people to fairness. The author reviews the vast amount of theoretical and empirical research that underlies each of the 4 approaches mentioned above. Important directions of future research are also discussed.

This article aims to clarify the common forms of hypotheses and explain how they are tested in industrial and organizational psychology, social psychology, and other disciplines. There are four types of testable hypotheses: main effect, moderation, mediation, and moderated mediation. Main effect hypotheses predict the relationship between two variables, for example, predictor X and outcome Y. Main effect provides a basis for the other three types of hypotheses. Moderation hypotheses focus on a variable, such as moderator W, which affects the association between two or more variables. Moderation hypotheses predict that the relationship between X and Y will change as a function of moderator W. Mediation hypotheses indicate the presence of an intervening variable, namely, mediator M that transmits the effect of X on Y. In other words, it is concerned with the indirect effect of X on Y through M. Finally, moderated mediation hypotheses refer to the notion that the indirect effect of X on Y through M is moderated by a fourth variable Z. These four types of hypotheses could be constructed from multi-level perspectives as well as a single-level perspective. Furthermore, how each type of hypothesis can be statistically tested is explained with reference to specific empirical studies. Finally, clarifying the form of the hypothesis will help reviewers and readers understand what researchers attempt to reveal. Such manuscripts can elicit a variety of comments from reviewers and readers, resulting in meaningful research publications.

application/pdf

The present study aims to develop the validated scale to assess Justice and Fairness for University Entrance Examinations. / There were 392 respondents from four universities of varying selectivity. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted, with the factor extraction method being the maximum likelihood method and the rotation method being Promax rotation. The number of factors was determined to be 3 with reference to statistical criteria such as parallel analysis, MAP criteria, and information criterion such as BIC and RMSEA. / Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were calculated to examine internal consistency. The overall scale was α=.803, distributive justice was α=.808, procedural justice 1 (retrospectivity) was α=.733, and procedural justice 2 (consistency/accuracy) was α=.780. / Comprehensive Fairness and Justice of University and College Entrance Examination Scale, the School System Justification Scale, and the Trust in the University and College Admission System Scale, the alpha coefficients were calculated to be .918, .733, and .745, respectively. These results indicate that the internal consistency of the results is sufficient. The correlation matrix with them was checked, and it was confirmed that the criterion-related validity was sufficiently ensured. / The results of the Justice and Fairness for University Admission Examinations Scale (JFUCEE) suggest, first, that justice and fairness in university admission is multidimensional, with distributive justice being of greatest interest in university admission. Unlike fairness research in organizations, procedural justice could not be extracted as a single factor, but was separated into two factors, procedural justice 1 (retrospectivity) and procedural justice 2 (consistency/accuracy), which, together with distributive justice, formed a three-factor structure. The correlations between procedural justice factors were also low, at .197 and .242, respectively, suggesting that procedures such as feedback and objections and the consistency and accuracy of information and standards are regarded as two separate things in the selection process for university admissions. / Second, the distributional justice was higher for the non-general admission examination than for the general admission examination, indicating that the view of fairness in university entrance examinations is changing. / Third, with regard to procedural fairness 1 (retrospectivity), if a university focuses on it in a particular selection method, it can certainly be a means to improve the view of fairness of university entrance examinations. / Fourth, with regard to procedural fairness2 (consistency/accuracy), there is a possibility to improve the fairness of university entrance selection depending on the efforts of each university. / JFUCEE is expected to provide the empirical basis to push forward study about justice issues in University Entrance Examinations.