Abstract
Equity theorists have frequently attempted to rank order situations of injustice in terms of preference, motivation to redress justice, and/or overt behavioral responses. The present paper deals with some difficulties facing those efforts and proposes a basis for more precise predictions. It is shown, through a structural specification of their various component types (socalled minor types), why a situation which is less preferred than others in one case may be more preferred than those in another, i.e., the preferential order reversed. This is demonstrated empirically in the present study. Two major types of injustice situations (Under/Over and Under/Just) were involved, one more unjust than the other. Each one encompassed, and was represented by three structurally different minor types. According to the predictions, subjects' preferences for either one of the two major types of injustice situations varied with the particular minor type presented in the study as representing the underlying major types. The findings have implications for the design offuture equity studies.