This study (N = 216) measured the strength of endorsements for ingroup leaders who varied in both their relative ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Leadership endorsement overall was positively related to group members' levels of social identification and negatively related to their levels of reported self-interest. Among low identifiers, however, leaders' distributive behavior reliably predicted endorsements, with stronger endorsements provided for distributively fair than unfair leaders. Among high identifiers, in contrast, both leaders' distributive behavior and relative ingroup prototypicality were important. Leaders high in ingroup prototypicality received strong endorsements from high identifiers regardless of the leaders' ingroup-favoring, outgroup-favoring, or fair intergroup behavior. Leaders low in ingroup prototypicality and who were relatively similar to the outgroup received strong endorsements from high identifiers only when the leaders made ingroup-favoring distributions. These data are interpreted within a social identity theory framework.
The emergence of restorative justice as an alternative model to Western, court-based criminal justice may have important implications for the psychology of justice. It is proposed that two different notions of justice affect responses to rule-breaking: restorative and retributive justice. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process. Among the symbolic implications of transgressions, concerns about status and power are primarily related to retributive justice and concerns about shared values are primarily related to restorative justice. At the core of these processes, however, lies the parties' construal of their identity relation, specifically whether or not respondents perceive to share an identity with the offender. The specific case of intergroup transgressions is discussed, as are implications for future research on restoring a sense of justice after rule-breaking.
Two experiments test the hypothesis that support for leaders is enhanced when their decisions affirm a distinct social identity that is shared with followers. In Experiment 1, participants showed less support for a leader who favored ingroup members who were relatively sympathetic to an outgroup position than for one who favored ingroup members who opposed an outgroup position. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2, which also showed that this pattern extended to support for the leader's novel plans. Although participants indicated that they supported a leader who behaved evenhandedly toward all ingroup members as much as one whose behavior was identity-affirming, they were unwilling to back up the evenhanded leader with written comments and arguments. These data suggest that leaders' capacity to engender active followership is contingent on their ability to promote collective interests associated with a shared ingroup identity.
Research on work group diversity has more or less neglected the possibility that reactions to diversity may be informed by individuals' beliefs about the value of diversity (vs. homogeneity) for their work group. We studied the role of such diversity beliefs as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and individuals' identification with the work group across 2 studies. Study 1 was a cross-sectional survey that focused on gender diversity and gender diversity beliefs. Study 2 was a laboratory experiment in which work group diversity and diversity beliefs were manipulated. Results of both studies support the prediction that work group diversity and group identification are more positively related the more individuals believe in the value of diversity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.