The group engagement model expands the insights of the group-value model of procedural justice and the relational model of authority into an explanation for why procedural justice shapes cooperation in groups, organizations, and societies. It hypothesizes that procedures are important because they shape people's social identity within groups, and social identity in turn influences attitudes, values, and behaviors. The model further hypothesizes that resource judgments exercise their influence indirectly by shaping social identity. This social identity mediation hypothesis explains why people focus on procedural justice, and in particular on procedural elements related to the quality of their interpersonal treatment, because those elements carry the most social identity-relevant information. In this article, we review several key insights of the group engagement model, relate these insights to important trends in psychological research on justice, and discuss implications of the model for the future of procedural justice research.

Two field studies tested and extended the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2000, Tyler & Blader, 2003) by examining the model with regard to employee extrarole behavior. Consistent with the group engagement model's predictions, results of these studies indicate that the social identities employees form around their work groups and their organizations are strongly related to whether employees engage in extrarole behaviors. Moreover, the studies demonstrated that social identity explains the impact of other factors that have previously been linked to extrarole behavior. In particular, the findings indicate that social identity mediates the effect of procedural justice judgments and economic outcomes on supervisor ratings of extrarole behavior. Overall, these studies provide compelling indication that social identity is an important determinant of behavior within work organizations and provide strong support for the application of the group engagement model in organizational settings.

Few empirical efforts have been devoted to differentiating status and power, and thus significant questions remain about differences in how status and power impact social encounters. We conducted 5 studies to address this gap. In particular, these studies tested the prediction that status and power would have opposing effects on justice enacted toward others. In the first 3 studies, we directly compared the effects of status and power on people's enactment of distributive (Study 1) and procedural (Studies 2 and 3) justice. In the last 2 studies, we orthogonally manipulated status and power and examined their main and interactive effects on people's enactment of distributive (Study 4) and procedural (Study 5) justice. As predicted, all 5 studies showed consistent evidence that status is positively associated with justice toward others, while power is negatively associated with justice toward others. The effects of power are moderated, however, by an individual's other orientation (Studies 2, 3, 4, and 5), and the effects of status are moderated by an individual's dispositional concern about status (Study 5). Furthermore, Studies 4 and 5 also demonstrated that status and power interact, such that the positive effect of status on justice emerges when power is low and not when power is high, providing further evidence for differential effects between power and status. Theoretical implications for the literatures on status, power, and distributive/procedural justice are discussed.

No abstract

Two studies test the prediction of the four-component model of procedural justice that people evaluate the fairness of group procedures using four distinct types of judgment. The model hypothesizes that people are influenced by two aspects of the formal procedures of the group: those aspects that relate to decision making and those that relate to the quality of treatment that group members are entitled to receive under the rules. In addition, people are hypothesized to be separately influenced by two aspects of the authorities with whom they personally deal: the quality of decision making by those authorities and the quality of the treatment that they receive from them. The results of two studies support the hypothesis of the four-component model by finding that all four of the procedural judgments identified by the model contribute to overall evaluations of the fairness of group procedures.