Reactions to outgroup authorities' decisions: The role of expected bias, procedural fairness and outcome favorability

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 281-299

  Ståhl, Tomas ^a,b   Vermunt, Riël ^a,b   Ellemers, Naomi ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SKÖVDE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Authority reputation; Expected bias; Intergroup perception; Outcome favorability; Procedural justice

Indexed keywords

EID: 45449091986     PISSN: 13684302     EISSN: 14617188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1368430208090643     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
3. De Cremer, D. (2004). The influence of accuracy as a function of leader's bias: The role of trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 293-304.
4. Diehl, M. (1989). Justice and discrimination between minimal groups: The limits of equity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 227-238.
5. Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 263-292). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
6. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.
7. Duck, J.M., & Fielding, K.S. (1999). Leaders and subgroups: One of us or one of them ? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2, 203-230.
8. Duck, J.M., & Fielding, K.S. (2003). Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: Implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 387-401.
9. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of 'voice' and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
10. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Harinck, F., & Ellemers, N. (2006). Playing hide and seek: The effects of revealing one's personal interests in intra- and inter-group negotiations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 791-813.
12. Horwitz, M., & Rabbie, J.M. (1989). Stereotypes of groups, group members and individuals in categories: A differential analysis. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 105-129). New York: Springer-Verlag.
13. Huo, Y.J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance ? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 336-348.
14. Huo, Y.J., Smith, H.J., Tyler T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40-45.
15. Kramer, R.M., Shah, P.P., & Woerner, S.L. (1995). Why ultimatums fail: Social identity, and moralistic aggression in coercive bargaining. In R. M. Kramer & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Negotiation as a social process (pp. 285-308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-54). New York: Plenum.
17. Lind, E.A., & Lissak, R. (1985). Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 19-29.
18. Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
19. Moy, J., & Ng, S.H. (1996). Expectation of outgroup behavior: Can you trust the outgroup ? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 333-340.
20. Ng, S.H. (1981). Equity theory and the allocation of rewards between groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 439-444.
21. Smith, H.J., Tyler, T.R., Huo, Y.J., Ortiz, D.J., & Lind, E.A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470-493.
22. Stähl, T., Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Vermunt, R. (2004). On the psychology of procedural justice: Reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 173-189.
23. Stähl, T., Vermunt, R., & Ellemers, N. (2006). Friend or foe? Ingroup identification moderates reactions to outgroup members' allocation behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 877-885.
24. Stähl, T., Vermunt, R., & Ellemers, N. (2008). For love or money? How activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decision-making procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 80-94.
25. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Precedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Tyler, T.R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
27. Tyler, T.R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482-497.
28. Tyler, T.R., Huo, Y.J., & Lind, E.A. (1999). The two psychologies of conflict resolution: Differing antecedents of pre-experience choices and post-experience evaluations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2, 99-118.
29. Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30. Tyler, T.R., Rasinski, K.A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72-81.
31. Tyler, T.R., & Smith, H.J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4 th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 595-629). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
32. Van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560-577.
33. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E.A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034-1046.
34. Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H.A.M., & Lind, E.A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-1458.
35. Van Leeuwen, E. (2001). Preserving identity when groups combine: A study of group-based reactions to mergers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
36. Van Prooijen, J.-W., Van den Bos, K., Lind, E.A., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2006). How do people react to negative procedures? On the moderating role of authority's biased attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 632-645.
37. Vermunt, R., Wit, A., Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E.A. (1996). The effects of unfair procedure on negative affect and protest. Social Justice Research, 9, 109-119.
38. Vivian, J.E., & Berkowitz, N.H. (1992). Anticipated bias from an outgroup: An attributional analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 415-424.