The multi-value basis of procedural justice

Heuer, Larry; Stroessner, Steven J.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.007

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A final limitation involves the potential for distributive justice to serve prosocial as opposed to proself attitudes. Similarly, emerging research has highlighted that procedural justice also may activate self interest, in addition to social concerns (e.g., Heuer & Stroessner, ). While the current results demonstrate that activating distributive justice may be associated with stern attitudes toward others, they do not rule out that thinking about distributive justice could also be associated with inclusiveness or that procedural justice also may engender callousness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributive Justice for Others, Collective Angst, and Support for Exclusion of Immigrants

Lucas

Rudolph

Zhdanova

et al. 2014

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harsh treatment of others can reflect an underlying motivation to view the world as fair and just and also a dispositional tendency to believe in justice. However, there is a critical need to refine and expand existing knowledge, not only to identify underlying psychological processes but also to better understand how justice may be implicated in support for exclusionary policies. Across two studies, we show that support for policies that restrict immigrants is exclusively associated with thoughts about fair outcomes for other people (distributive justice for others). In Study 1, Americans' dispositional tendency to believe in distributive justice for others was associated with greater support for a policy proposing to further restrict immigrant job seekers' capacity to gain employment in the United States. In Study 2, we experimentally primed thoughts about justice in a sample of U.S. police officers. Support for a policy that mandated stricter policing of illegal immigration was strongest among officers who first thought about fair outcomes for other people, relative to other unique justice primes. Across both studies, distributive justice for others was associated with greater collective angst-perceived threat towards the future existence of Americans. Moreover, collective angst mediated the link between distributive justice for others and support for restrictive policies. Overall, this research suggests that thoughts about distributive justice for others can especially diminish compassion towards immigrants and other underprivileged groups via support for exclusionary policies. In addition, merely thinking about distributive justice for others may be sufficient to amplify social callousness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributive Justice for Others, Collective Angst, and Support for Exclusion of Immigrants

Lucas

Rudolph

Zhdanova

et al. 2014

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When people do not recognise an authority figure as representing a contextually relevant group, or when they do not feel their status is in question, procedural fairness may mean little since the information it provides them is not identity relevant. Conversely Heuer and Stroessner (2011) found that respect -a relational variable -affected overall assessments of procedural fairness not only because it communicated ingroup status but also because it communicated intergroup standing. People's judgements about the status of their own group vis a vis another were enhanced when a representative of the outgroup treated them with respect, and intergroup standing partially mediated the link between respect and overall assessments of procedural fairness.…”

Section: Does Everyone Care About Procedural Justice?mentioning

confidence: 91%

Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion, and Cooperation between Police and Public

Bradford

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this case, individuals seek affirmation of out-group authorities' respect for the individuals' in-groups (conveying the respect of the group that authorities represent; Heuer and Stroessner 2011), as well as satisfaction with the legitimacy of the decision-making process and its outcomes (Stähl et al 2004). Therefore, it appears that the group value and group engagement models of legitimation may stand, though as part of a more comprehensive multi-value model (see Heuer and Stroessner 2011).…”

Section: Social Identity Models and Their Challengersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tyler, Goff, and MacCoun 2015). Legitimacy is the state of being accepted as authoritative, and theories of how legal authorities attain this state are rooted in SIT (Heuer and Stroessner 2011). Recent studies have revisited Tyler's original propositions, extending and revising the group value and group engagement models for greater and more precise explanatory power (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing a Social Identity Model of System Attitudes

Blount‐Hill

2019

Int. ann. criminol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The connection between social identity and attitudes toward the criminal justice system (CJS) is an area of interest among criminologists and legitimacy scholars. Previous work has proposed a social identity theory of legitimation, positing that individuals categorize CJS officials as either in-group (i.e. legitimate authority) or out-group (i.e. illegitimate enforcer). Subsequently, how individuals perceive their CJS – including the sincerity of its commitment to the rule of law – is tied to this relationship. Those viewing the government as an out-group oppressor are less likely to accept its legitimacy. This article explores this thesis. From the perspective of system justification theory, how the CJS is categorized should depend on how strongly an individual identifies as belonging to a group disadvantaged by the CJS. System justification theorists hypothesize that system justification (including acceptance of system legitimacy) is more likely when members of disadvantaged groups believe that group interests are less important. Alternative models that explain attitudes toward the system by using social identity theory suggest the opposite: Those who identify more strongly with disadvantaged groups and hold their interests to be more important nonetheless justify oppositional systems and view them legitimately. The present study uses a sample of Black Americans (a disadvantaged group in the American CJS) to determine whether group identification predicts system justification.

show abstract

The multi-value basis of procedural justice

Cited by 14 publications

References 61 publications

Distributive Justice for Others, Collective Angst, and Support for Exclusion of Immigrants

Distributive Justice for Others, Collective Angst, and Support for Exclusion of Immigrants

Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion, and Cooperation between Police and Public

Advancing a Social Identity Model of System Attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About