Shifting Standards of Unfairness in Romantic Relationships

Equality;Equity;Interpersonal relationships;Online social networks;Internet social aspects

Boerst, Ashley MMiron, Anca ;

University of Wisconsin

关键词: Equality;    Equity;    Interpersonal relationships;    Online social networks;    Internet social aspects;   

Others  :  https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/62259/BoerstAshley.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: University of Wisconsin

【 摘 要 】

The current study sought to investigate whether differential appraisals of onlinerelationship transgressions made by victims and perpetrators in romantic relationshipscan be accounted for by incongruent unfairness standards. Prior research has shown thatjudgments of injustice can be a function of the confirmatory standards to which peopledetermine harm has occurred (Miron, Warner & Branscombe, 2010). A confirmatorystandard of injustice is defined as a subjective threshold people set in order to concludethat an action has definitely taken place or that a person or group has a particular ability(Miron & Branscombe, 2008). Miron et al. (2011) found that when judging the severityof wage inequality, disadvantaged group members set lower confirmatory standards thanadvantaged members and therefore perceived the existing inequality as more unfair. Thismeans that disadvantaged group members asked for less evidence of wage inequality andconsequently made harsher judgments of inequality. The motivation to protect one;;spositive identity has also been shown to manifest itself in the differential attributionsmade by victims and perpetrators (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), especially withinromantic relationships (Feeney & Hill, 2006; Kearns & Fincham, 2005). While bothdifferential standards and attributions have been found to lead to different perceptions ofharm, the current study proposed a model in which the effect of victim vs. perpetratorperspective on standards of unfairness and judgments of harm occurs above and beyondthat of attributions. Participants read a hypothetical transgression situation in either theperspective of the victim or perpetrator. Participants then answered questions assessingtheir unfairness standards, judgments of harm, attributions, and levels of forgiveness. Theresults suggested that victims of online relational transgressions and perpetrators of theoffenses set different confirmatory standards of unfairness for what content can bediscussed with potential others, with victims setting lower confirmatory standards thanperpetrators. Although these divergent unfairness standards were not found to influenceindividuals;; appraisals of the unfairness of transgression, the effect of the perspectivemanipulation on standards occurred above and beyond that of attributions. Implicationsand future research directions are discussed.