Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:58:49.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling justice as a natural phenomenon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

Ken Binmore
Ken Binmore*
Affiliation:
Economics Department, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. k.binmore@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Among other things, Baumard et al.'s “A Mutualistic Approach to Morality” considers the enforcement and establishment of moral norms, the interpersonal comparison of welfare, and the structure of fairness norms. This commentary draws attention to the relevance of the game theory literature to the first and second topic, and the social psychology literature to the third topic.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 82 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. (1963) Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67:422–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Advances in experimental social science, vol. 2, ed. Berkowitz, L., pp. 267–99. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Adams, J. & Freedman, S. (1976) Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. In: Advances in experimental social science, vol. 9, ed. Berkowitz, L., pp. 43–90. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Austin, W. & Hatfield, E. (1980) Equity theory, power and social justice. In: Justice and social interaction, ed. Mikula, G., pp. 25–61. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Austin, W. & Walster, E. (1974) Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies of equity and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30:208–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (1993) Heuristics and biases in equity judgments: A utilitarian approach. In: Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications, ed. Mellers, B. & Baron, J., pp. 109–37. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. (1998a) Game theory and the social contract, vol. 2: Just playing. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. (1998b) Review of Complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration, by Robert Axelrod. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 1. Available at: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/1/review1.html.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. (2005) Natural justice. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. (2006) Economic man – or straw man? A commentary on Henrich et al. Behavioral and Brain Science 28:817–18.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. (2007) A very short introduction to game theory. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. & Shaked, A. (2010) Experimental economics: Where next? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 73:87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, R. & Greenberg, J. (1982) The justice concept in social psychology. In: Equity and justice in social behavior, ed. Cohen, R. & Greenberg, J., pp. 1–41. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Furby, L. (1986) Psychology and justice. In: Justice: Views from the social sciences, ed. Cohen, R., pp. 153–203. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. (1963) The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturalist 97:354–56.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. (1977) Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homans, G. (1961) Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. (1977) Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Penguin.Google Scholar
Mellers, B. (1982) Equity judgment: A revision of Aristotelian views. Journal of Experimental Biology 111:242–70.Google Scholar
Mellers, B. & Baron, J. (1993) Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Messick, D. & Cook, K. (1983) Equity theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives. Praeger.Google Scholar
Pritchard, R. (1969) Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4:176–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagstaff, G. (1994) Equity, equality, and need: Three principles of justice or one? Current Psychology: Research and Reviews 13:138–52.Google Scholar
Wagstaff, G. (2001) An integrated psychological and philosophical approach to justice. Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Wagstaff, G., Huggins, J. & Perfect, T. (1996) Equal ratio equity, general linear equity and framing effects in judgments of allocation divisions. European Journal of Social Psychology 26:29–41.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagstaff, G. & Perfect, T. (1992) On the definition of perfect equity and the prediction of inequity. British Journal of Social Psychology 31:69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walster, E., Berscheid, E. & Walster, G. (1973) New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25:151–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walster, E. & Walster, G. (1975) Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues 31:21–43.Google Scholar
Walster, E., Walster, G. & Berscheid, E. (1978) Equity: Theory and research. Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar