Justice in United Germany

United Germany as a naturalistic inter-group context for testing justice theories

Germany was divided into two separate parts following World War II, with the Western part becoming the Federal Republic of Germany and the Eastern part becoming the German Democratic Republic. Both states developed their own economic, administrative, cultural, and social systems. The West German society was build economically on capitalist principles and politically on the principles of a liberal democracy. East Germany turned into a state-controlled socialist republic with a highly regulated economy. This division lasted for 40 years and provided few opportunities for individuals to engage in cross-border interactions.

In 1989, the East German system collapsed, mostly for economic reasons. Many East German citizens were disappointed with the system’s inability to provide a comfortable standard of living. Most East Germans watched West German TV programs and a few were allowed to travel to West Germany. Both kinds of information, that provided by West German television and that obtained by East Germans who had visited relatives in West Germany converged in showing a large gap between East and West Germany in quality of life. Although East Germany was a rather prosperous country compared to other Warsaw Pact countries, it was a poor country compared to West Germany. The combination of this enduring economic disadvantage and a large number of restrictions to individual freedom and self-determination eventually lead to collective protest against the system in 1989. As a consequence of repeated mass demonstrations, the Berlin wall was opened on November 9. Thereafter, the system collapsed in several steps. Less than a year later, on October 3,1990, East and West Germany were united.

The unification was followed by a one-sided assimilation. The political, legal, and economic systems that had evolved in West Germany over 40 years were partly taken by and partly imposed on East Germany. From a social justice perspective, the replacement of East German rules and standards by West German rules and standards is remarkable because it implies a clear status difference between East and West Germans. East Germans adopted West German principles that seemed or were superior to the principles that East Germans had followed or were forced to follow for 40 years. East Germans hoped and were promised that the benefit of accepting the assimilation would be a rapid increase in the standard of living. In fact, it was the predominant belief at the time of the unification in both parts of Germany that it would take about 5 years to make the living conditions in East Germany equal to those West Germans had enjoyed for some time. These expectations were reinforced by many politicians, foremost by Chancellor Helmut Kohl who predicted that East Germany would prosper and flourish economically. Some economists and politicians even predicted that the East German economy would surpass the West German economy leading to a higher standard of living in East Germany compared to West Germany.

These predictions soon turned out to be overly optimistic. Due to the low productivity of East German industry and the poor infrastructure all over the country (transportation, communication), the cost of making the East Germany economy productive and efficient was greatly underestimated. Despite an average of 100 Billion Euro that were transferred annually from West to East Germany, the standard of living is still substantially lower in East Germany than in West Germany even more than 15 years after the unification. Most importantly perhaps, the unemployment rate continues to be twice as high in East Germany than in West Germany.

Due to their enduring status of inferiority and economic inferiority, a large majority of East Germans feel like second class citizens. From various points of view, this is an unfortunate and even tragic situation. From a scientific social psychological point of view, this inter-group situation in united Germany provides an opportunity for testing social justice theories, most importantly the theory of relative deprivation (RDT; e.g., Crosby, 1976, 1981; Davis, 1959; Runciman, 1966; Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star, & Williams, 1949) and its counterpart, the theory of relative privilege (RPT; e.g., Hoffman, 1976; Montada, Schmitt & Dalbert, 1986; Montada & Schneider, 1989; Schmitt, Behner, Montada, Müller, & Müller-Fohrbrodt, 2000).

Aims, scope, design, and participants of the study

When it became obvious soon after the unification that the relative deprivation of East Germany might be a slowly changing phenomenon, Manfred Schmitt (PI), Jürgen Maes, Andreas Schmal, Roland Neumann, and Leo Montada initiated a research project that was aimed at testing several theories that address such an inter-group situation. RDT and RPT were considered the most relevant theories, but other theories dealing with inter-group processes were considered as well: Social Identity Theory (SIT), Self-Categorization Theory (SCT), coping theories, and theories of human development that consider critical life events to be triggers of personality and social development.

Assuming that the inter-group situation in united Germany would be a slowly changing phenomenon, a longitudinal study was planned with three occasions of measurement: 1996, 1998, 2000. Besides being able to reveal change processes, such a design makes it possible to test the causal processes assumed by the theories mentioned earlier. Cross-sectional studies can only test implications of causal processes but cannot rule out alternative causal processes having the same implications.

The meta-theoretical perspective for the study was inspired by earlier work conducted in our group (http://www.gerechtigkeitsforschung.de/english/). It integrates theories of personality, social psychology, and human development into a broad theoretical framework that includes four types of hypothetical constructs: personality constructs such as belief in a just world, cognition constructs such as judging an outcome as deserved, emotion constructs such as guilt, and behavior constructs such as helping unfairly deprived victims. In addition, the present research included a large variety of demographic variables and indicators of objective living conditions. These variables were needed in order to explore links between the objective living conditions in united Germany and the subjective perception and interpretation of these conditions by East and West German citizens. Demographic variables were also included for testing the generalizability of links among psychological variables. Moreover, objective life quality indicators were included in order to compare their relative impact with the relative impact of psychological variables on important outcomes such as emotional well-being.

Assuming that demographic variables and objective living conditions have some impact on the psychological variables of interest, great care was taken to obtain a sample that was as representative of the German population as possible. Participants were recruited on the basis of a geographical division of Germany into 18 cells. Registration offices of two communities in each cell provided random samples from the population of all inhabitants between 15 and 75 years of age. Additional respondents were randomly drawn from electronic telephone directories. About 2500 participants returned questionnaires at the first occasion of measurement.

A more detailed description of the aims, scope, design, variables, and sample of the project can be obtained from a research report that is available online (http://www.gerechtigkeitsforschung.de/berichte/beri110.pdf).

The project was located at three universities, the University of Trier, the Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg, and the Center for Justice Research at the University of Potsdam. The Center for Justice Research was directed by Leo Montada at the time. In 2001, the Center for Justice Research was merged with the Human Rights Center. The project was funded by the German Research Foundation and the Minister of Science, Education, Research, and Cultural Affairs of Rhineland-Palatine.

Here is a photo of the core research team (from left to right): Andreas Schmal, Manfred Schmitt, Jürgen Maes. The photo was taken in 1996 by Thomas Boll.

Results and publications

Because of a specific interest of the German public and the German scientific community in the project, most results were published in German (http://www.uni-landau.de/schmittmanfred/forschung/gip/publikationen.html). However, results of interest beyond the German readership and of interest from a basic research perspective were also published in English. Some of these publications are available online as research reports. Other papers were published as articles in journals and books. These articles can be obtained on request from Manfred Schmitt (schmittm@uni-landau.de). A brief summary of the English articles follows in chronological order.

Schmitt and Maes (1998) provided a first cross sectional analysis of the data and explored how perceptions of the living conditions in united Germany affect well-being and mental health. This first analysis was focused on appraisals of life quality on the labor market seven years after the German unification. Judgments included perceived East-West differences, the justice of East-West differences, and temporal comparisons (changes since the unification and expectations in East and West Germany). Changes and expectations for East and West Germany were combined to obtain social-temporal comparisons. Negative emotions (envy, anxiety, moral outrage, guilt, hopelessness) and positive emotions (gratefulness, pride) regarding the situation in the labor market were also assessed. Mental health indicators included measures of depression, self-esteem, and psychosomatic well-being. Parameters of a path model were estimated by regressing (1) mental health on emotions and judgments and (2) emotions on judgments. Mental health of East Germans was associated negatively with envy, anxiety, and hopelessness. Moral outrage had a positive suppressor effect. Mental health of West Germans was linked negatively with envy, anxiety, and existential guilt whereas pride, the perception of unfair privileges, and optimistic expectations had positive path effects. Appraising East-West differences as unjust played a core role in predicting emotions in both samples. Social comparisons and social-temporal comparisons were superior to egocentric temporal comparisons for predicting social emotions (envy, moral outrage, guilt) while egocentric temporal comparisons were generally more important for predicting "non social" emotions (anxiety, hopelessness). A more detailed version of Schmitt and Maes (1998) article is online available as a research report (Maes, Schmitt, Lischetzke, & Schmiedemann, 1998).

Maes and Schmitt (1999) replicated results from previous studies suggesting that the belief in a just world may consist of several components that need to be distinguished conceptually. In these studies, two types of belief in a just world -- belief in immanent justice and belief in ultimate justice – were found to differ systematically in how they correlate with other variables. Only belief in immanent justice correlated with blaming and derogating innocent victims. By contrast, belief in ultimate justice was associated with positive evaluations of victims and with prosocial behavior. This pattern of correlations was replicated. Several additional correlations supported the conclusion that belief in immanent and belief in ultimate justice imply different ways of dealing with justice issues. Immanent justice correlated with draconity, the proneness to strict and severe judgments. By contrast, ultimate justice was associated with mildness. Only ultimate justice correlated with existential guilt and pity for the underprivileged. Finally, immanent justice correlated with a preference for the equity principle, whereas ultimate justice correlated with preferring the need principle and the equality principle.

Schmitt, Maes, and Reichle (2001) used the data and data from several additional studies for testing two influential social justice theories, Lerner’s Justice Motive Theory (Lerner, 1980) and Montada’s Existential Guilt Theory (Montada, Schmitt, & Dalbert, 1986; Montada & Schneider, 1989). Results converged and were largely in agreement with both theories. In line with the aforementioned analysis of Maes and Schmitt (1999), however, results also suggested that the belief in a just world needs to be decomposed into several ways of believing in justice that differentially affect social judgments and interpersonal behavior.

Schmitt and Maes (2002) tested whether ingroup bias can buffer the effects of relative deprivation. This idea was derived from Social Identity Theory and Social Categorization Theory. Assuming that East Germans’ self-esteem is threatened by unfavorable social comparisons with West Germans, Schmitt and Maes (2002) predicted that East Germans would employ ingroup-bias as a self-defensive mechanism. In line with this prediction, it was found that (a) East Germans feel unfairly deprived compared to West Germans in four important quality of life domains, (b) they displayed ingroup bias vis à vis West Germans, especially on the dimension of virtue and integrity, (c) ingroup bias buffers the effect of relative deprivation on mental health over time, and (d) ingroup bias is determined longitudinally by relative deprivation. West Germans felt privileged compared to East Germans and considered their advantages to be undeserved. Unexpectedly, West Germans displayed outgroup bias on the stereotype dimensions of virtue and integrity. This bias is interpreted as an effort to appease the moral outrage of East Germans and to silence their guilty conscience due to undeserved advantages.

Reichle and Schmitt (2002) used the data for testing two mechanisms that people commonly employ for preserving their belief in a just world and for defending it against threats. Being confronted with disadvantaged groups is a frequent source of such threats. People who believe in a just world can defend their belief either by helping the disadvantaged or by derogating them. Reichle and Schmitt (2002) used indicators of both mechanisms and tested their longitudinal effects on changes in the just world belief. They found that West Germans are more likely to defend their just world belief by helping disadvantaged East Germans than by derogating them.

Schmitt, Maes & Widaman (2003) tested a widely accepted version of relative deprivation theory stating that fraternal deprivation causes protest, but does not impact the individual’s well-being, whereas egoistic deprivation impairs the well-being of deprived persons, but does not cause protest. Schmitt et al. (2003) considered this view incomplete, predicted that fraternal deprivation can impair well-being under certain conditions, and suggested that negative emotion and negative social identity are mediating mechanisms for this effect. In line with predictions, longitudinal effects of fraternal deprivation on life satisfaction and mental health were identified and these effects were independent of an individual’s life quality. The longitudinal effect of individual life quality on life satisfaction (beta = .10) was about twice as large as the longitudinal effect of fraternal deprivation (beta = -.06) on life satisfaction. The effects of individual life quality and fraternal deprivation on mental health were equal (beta =|.04|). The authors discussed reasons for the small effect sizes and concluded that fraternal deprivation is no less problematic for individuals’ well being than is the quality of their personal living conditions.

Maes and Schmitt (2004) explored how different components of the just world belief (belief in ultimate justice, belief in immanent justice, general belief in a just world, general belief in an unjust world) change across age. They also investigated whether the correlation between the belief in a just world and other constructs changes as a function of age. One of their findings was that the correlation between belief in a just world and self-esteem increased with age. Whereas among adolescents, self-esteem was unrelated to belief in a just world, both constructs correlated positively among the elderly. Another finding was that the correlation between belief in a just world and socio-political attitudes changed as a function of age. Whereas belief in a just world was unrelated to fascism, authoritarianism, and Machiavellianism among adolescents, a positive correlation was found among adults, and this correlation increased with age. The opposite trend was observed when belief in a just world was correlated with socialism. Among adolescents, the correlation between belief in a just world and socialism was positive. After adolescence, the correlation between both constructs gradually vanished with age.

Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, and Arbach (2005) used the data set from the project and data sets from other studies for exploring the reliability, trait consistency, occasion specificity, and method specificity of three justice sensitivity scales (victim, beneficiary, observer; http://www.uni-landau.de/schmittmanfred/english/forschung/sbi/index.html). Their analyses also provided evidence for the convergent and discriminant construct validity of these scales. Observer sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity correlated more highly with each other than with victim sensitivity. Self-related concerns (Machiavellianism, paranoia, suspiciousness, vengeance, jealousy, interpersonal trust) correlated more highly with victim sensitivity than with observer and beneficiary sensitivity. Other-related concerns (role taking, empathy, social responsibility) correlated more highly with observer and beneficiary sensitivity than with victim sensitivity. Low correlations between justice sensitivity and just world belief constructs were found. Few correlations between justice sensitivity and broad personality traits were significant. Victim sensitivity correlated with neuroticism (» .30). Beneficiary sensitivity correlated with agreeableness (» .20). Schmitt et al. (2005) concluded from this pattern of results that observer and beneficiary sensitivity reflect high moral standards, whereas victim sensitivity seems to be a mixture of self-protective motives and moral concerns.

Gollwitzer, Schmitt, Schalke, Maes, and Baer (2005) used the data set from the project as well as data from two other studies for testing more specifically the aforementioned conclusion drawn by Schmitt et al. (2005). In the Gollwitzer et al. (2005) studies, the effects of victim sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity on indicators of prosocial behavior (i.e., existential guilt, solidarity, and responsibility ascriptions towards the disadvantaged) and antisocial behavior (i.e., the willingness to transgress a norm in a moral temptation dilemma) were estimated. It was expected that beneficiary sensitivity would be associated positively with prosocial behavior and negatively with antisocial behavior. The opposite pattern was expected for victim sensitivity. All three studies supported these hypotheses. Taken together, the available evidence suggests that beneficiary sensitivity is a genuine, other-related concern for justice and social responsibility, whereas victim sensitivity is a mixture of self-related concerns and genuine concerns for justice.

References

Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J. & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18, 183-201.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.

Maes, J. & Schmitt, M. (1999). More on ultimate and immament justice: Results from the research projekt "Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany". Social Justice Research, 12, 65-78.

Maes, J. & Schmitt, M. (2004). Transformation of the justice motive? Belief in a just world and its correlates in different age groups. In C. Dalbert & H. Sallay (Eds.), The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood (pp. 64-82). London: Routledge.

Maes, J., Schmitt, M., Lischetzke, T., & Schmiedemann, V. (1998). Effects of experienced injustice in unified Germany on well-being and mental health (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe "Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral" Nr. 110). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I - Psychologie.

Montada, L., Schmitt, M. & Dalbert, C. (1986). Thinking about justice and dealing with one’s own privileges: A study of existential guilt. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. Cohen & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 125-143). New York: Plenum Press.

Montada, L. & Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3, 313-344.

Reichle, B. & Schmitt, M. (2002). Helping and Rationalization as Alternative Strategies for Restoring the Belief in a Just World: Evidence from Longitudinal Change Analyses. In M. Ross & D.T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 127-148). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, M. & Maes, J. (1998). Perceived injustice in unified Germany and mental health. Social Justice Research, 11, 59-78.

Schmitt, M. & Maes, J. (2002). Stereotypic ingroup bias as self-defense against relative deprivation: Evidence from a longitudinal study of the German unification process. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 309-326.

Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J. & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202-211.

Schmitt, M., Maes, J. & Reichle, B. (2001). Responsibility and attitudes towards the disadvantaged. In H.W. Bierhoff & A.E. Auhagen (Eds.), Responsibility – the many faces of a social phenomenon (pp. 167-178). London: Routledge.

Schmitt, M., Maes, J. & Widaman, K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of fraternal deprivation on life satisfaction and mental health (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe "Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral" Nr. 154). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I - Psychologie.

---