The value of personal norms (Schwartz, 1977) for proenvironmental behavior has been demonstrated in previous studies (e.g., Vining & Ebreo, 1992), but not in addition to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). In the present study, this combination was investigated by means of a mail survey among a sample of 305 Dutch citizens who were enlisted to participate in a behavioral change intervention program on environmentally relevant behavior. Personal norms appear to increase the proportion of explained variance in 5 intentions and 4 self‐reported measures of performed environmentally relevant behaviors beyond that explained by three of the theory of planned behavior constructs (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control). Issues evoked by these results are discussed.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors provide an explanation of the frequently replicated fair process effect (the finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects how people react to outcomes). The authors argue that, in many situations, people may find it difficult to assess whether their outcome is fair or unfair and satisfying or unsatisfying because they only have information about their own outcome and they do not know the outcomes of others and that, in these situations, people use the fairness of the procedure as a heuristic substitute to assess how to judge their outcome. The results of 2 experiments corroborate the authors' line of reasoning. Findings are discussed in terms of recent developments toward an integration of the procedural and distributive justice domains.

Two experiments investigated predictions from social identity theory and relative deprivation theory regarding membership in low-status groups, using a 3 (legitimacy of low status) X 2 (permeability of group boundaries) X 2 (stability of group status) between-subjects design. Main dependent variables concerned in-group identification and individual and collective mobility attempts. Group members considered their low status more acceptable when it seemed legitimate. In Experiment 1 (N = 184), illegitimate assignment of low status to the Ss' group increased in-group identification. In Experiment 2 (N = 178), illegitimate allocation of individual Ss to a low-status group decreased group identification. Attempts to acquire higher status individually (individual mobility) or collectively (group mobility) were more strongly affected by prospects for status improvement than by legitimacy manipulations.

According to social identity theory, striving of group members for enhancement of their social identity may be resolved through individual mobility (i.e. by dissociation from one's own group in order to gain membership of a higher status group), or by social change (i.e. by upgrading the status position of the in-group as a whole). Individual mobility may only be achieved when group boundaries are permeable; social change is only feasible when group status is unstable. This study investigates how these structural characteristics of the intergroup situation affect group members' preference for the individual mobility or social change strategy. In a laboratory setting subjects were given bogus feedback to induce differential levels of individual ability and group status. Additionally, the permeability of group boundaries and the stability of group status were manipulated. The main results are that, generally, members of high status groups show more satisfaction and in-group identification than members of low status groups. Permeable group boundaries apparently induce a tendency to strive for individual mobility, regardless of the in-group's status position. In relation to members of impermeable groups, members of groups with permeable boundaries show decreased in-group identification; there is evidence of (anticipatory) identification with the higher status group instead. A collective attempt at social change seems to be evoked when group status is unstable. In all groups with unstable status, members indicate their readiness to try to improve their group's status position. Moreover, members of low status groups with unstable status positions show relatively strong in-group identification, despite the lack of positive distinctiveness available to the in-group at the time.

In this article, 2 experiments are presented. In both experiments, the independent variables were whether the procedure was accurate or inaccurate, whether the outcome was favorable or unfavorable, and whether participants were informed about the procedure before or after they were informed about the outcome. The independent variables were manipulated by means of scenarios in Experiment 1 and by means of the R. \fermunt, A. P. Wit, K. van den Bos, and E. A. Lind (1996) paradigm in Experiment 2. As predicted on the basis of the authors' analysis of fairness heuristic theory, the findings revealed that what people judge to be fair is more strongly affected by information that is received first than by subsequently received information. The findings are discussed in terms of recent developments toward an integration of the procedural and distributive justice domains.