In previous posts, I've discussed how perceptions of fairness and justice are influenced by hope, optimism, a sense of personal control over important life outcomes, and whether one thinks people deserve what they get. Of course, hope, optimism, perceived control, and deservingness are not the end of the story. Each requires its own explanation.
Take 'deservingness'. Most people accept that merit should be rewarded and bad behavior punished, but that doesn't tell us much. The difficult question is: how much? Part of the answer to that is: according to the rules of a legitimate system. And what makes a system legitimate?
The word “legitimacy” is derived from the Medieval Latin lēgitimātus, which means "lawfully begotten". Legitimacy has since acquired the sense of the right and acceptance of an authority to exercise power and make laws or rules according to some system of principles, procedures, or standards. If we accept the system, we're likely to accept the laws or rules as legitimate - even if we sometimes disagree with them. For instance, one may disagree with a jury's verdict but accept it anyway because one accepts the jury system. Or one may not like that chief executives get paid way more than other employees but accepts such pay decisions as the prerogative of a company's board of directors.
A system loses legitimacy when it is perceived as fundamentally unfair or capricious, rewarding or punishing the wrong people. Social identity research has found that when people attribute their own "relative deprivation" to an illegitimate system, they are apt to experience the situation as unjust. And they get mad.
Next: Fairness and entitlement
Reference:
Smith, H. J., T. F. Pettigrew, et al. (2011). "Relative Deprivation: A Theoretical and Meta-Analytic Review." Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(3): 203-232.