Two experimental tests of relational models of procedural justice: Non‐instrumental voice and authority group membership

Abstract

In both a laboratory experiment (in Australia) using university as the basis of group membership, and a scenario experiment (in India) using religion as the basis of group membership, we observe more favourable respect and fairness ratings in response to an in‐group authority than an out‐group authority who administers non‐instrumental voice. Moreover, we observe in our second experiment that reported likelihood of protest (herein called “social‐change voice”) was relatively high following non‐instrumental voice from an out‐group authority, but relatively low following non‐instrumental voice from an in‐group authority. Our findings are consistent with relational models of procedural justice, and extend the work by examining likely use of alternative forms of voice as well as highlighting the relative importance of instrumentality.

Social Justice and Public Cooperation Intention: Mediating Role of Political Trust and Moderating Effect of Outcome Dependence

“…Because the responder can reject the proposal of the proposer, in order to punish him, they could indeed change the results. More importantly, a few past studies showed that the effect of instrumental voice led to higher procedural justice of the subjects than non-instrumental voice ( Lind et al, 1990 ; Platow et al, 2013 ).…”

Perceived Fairness and Regulatory Policy

“…Perceived fairness has been measured in policy studies and in other research contexts in many countries and many languages. Reliable and valid measures of fairness and the elements that affect feelings of fair treatment have been developed and used, for example, in North America (Colquitt, 2001), Japan (Ohbuchi, Sugawara, Teshigahara, and Imazai, 2005), China (Leung et al, 2007), the Netherlands (Van den Bos et al, 2014), France (Lind, Erickson, Friedland, and Dickenberger, 1978), Germany (Lind et al, 1978), the United Kingdom (Lind et al, 1978), Spain (e.g., Perez-Achechaederra-Perez, Lind, Briones, and Garcia, 2014), India (Platow, Eggins, Chattopadhyay, Brewer, Hardwick, Milsom, Brocklebank, Lalor, Martin, Quee, Vassallo, Welsh, 2013), Pakistan (Murtaza, Shad, Shahzad, Shah, and Khan, 2011), Australia and New Zealand (Platow et al, 2013;Janson et al, 2008), Ghana (Tankebe, 2009), Nigeria (Sunday, 2014), Saudi Arabia (Moussa, 2013), and other countries. The key to successful measurement of perceived fairness and related concepts lies in careful translation and adaptation of survey items to the local language and context.…”

The Evolution of Morality

“…The effects of procedural fairness are pan-cultural, having been replicated in nondemocratic and non-Western countries such as Japan (Takenishi & Takenishi, 1992 ), Singapore (Khatri, Fern, & Budhwar, 2001 ), India (Pillai, Williams, & Tan, 2001 ;Platow et al, 2013), South Africa (VanYperen, Hagedoorn, Zweers, & Postma, 2000, Russia (Giacobbe- Miller, Miller, & Victorov, 1998 ), and China (Wilking, 2011 ). Moreover, anthropological studies suggest that even simple hunter-gatherer societies entirely excluded from modern civilizations evaluate leaders by means of procedural fairness standards such as voice and impartiality (Boehm, 1993 ;Meggitt, 1977 ; see also .…”