{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018010291595197257, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002572898799313894, 'mean_word_length': 5.240641711229946, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Explaining the Choice of Distribution Rule: The Role of Mental Representations

Justice researchers have long puzzled over the enormous variation in the distribution rule considered appropriate in different situations, and no overall pattern of rule use has yet been identified. A series of in-depth, semistructured interviews was combined with a small-scale ( N = 229) survey carried out in the UK to test the hypothesis that it is the perception of the situation that mediates the use of justice rules. Content analysis revealed significant associations between the distribution rules mentioned or endorsed spontaneously and the descriptions of groups, social relations, and people that the subjects used in prompted and unprompted explanations. These different elements associated with a rule form a “justice ideology” and constitute a representation of society. The rules used were different for different resources within a domain, calling into question the existence of a single, domain-specific rule. This sample of British respondents was firmly in favor of a more egalitarian distribution of income and favored the use of a need rule in the local community.