Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model.

Tyler, Tom R.; Degoey, Peter; Smith, Heather J.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.913

Cited by 685 publications

(637 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

598

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tyler et al, 1996), we argue here that cognitive accessibility of the general concept of status (e.g., because of feedback about one's status position, or because one has just answered questions about status in a survey) may lead to an increased concern for such regard and approval. In situations in which information about status is made cognitively accessible, people therefore seek cues that may inform them about how they are held in regard by others.…”

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…To this end, people pay particular attention to the way in which they are treated by relevant group authorities, because group authorities tend to be regarded as representatives for their group (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Hence, fair procedures by group authorities may indicate that one is valued and respected as a group member (Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996).…”

Section: Procedural Justice and Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

Prooijen¹,

Bos²,

Wilke³

2002

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

125

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current article explores status as an antecedent of procedural fairness effects (the findings that perceived procedural fairness affects people's reactions, e.g., their relational judgments). On the basis of the literature, the authors proposed that salience of the general concept of status leads people to be more attentive to procedural fairness information and that, as a consequence, stronger procedural fairness effects should be found. In correspondence with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed stronger procedural fairness effects on people's relational treatment evaluations in a status salient condition compared with a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and, in further correspondence with the hypothesis, showed that status salience led to increased cognitive accessibility of fairness concerns. Implications for the psychology of procedural justice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Procedural Justice and Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

Prooijen¹,

Bos²,

Wilke³

2002

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

125

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If group authorities treat people with dignity, people infer that they are respected members within the group and that there is good reason to have pride in their group membership. If group authorities treat people rudely, people infer that they are not well-respected members within the group and that there is no valid reason to have pride in their group membership (Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Belongingness and Procedural Justice: Social Inclusion and Exclusion by Peers Affects the Psychology of Voice.

Prooijen¹,

Bos²,

Wilke³

2004

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors focus on the relation between group membership and procedural justice. They argue that whether people are socially included or excluded by their peers influences their reactions to unrelated experiences of procedural justice. Findings from 2 experiments corroborate the prediction that reactions to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures are affected more strongly when people are included in a group than when they are excluded from a group. These findings are extended with a 3rd experiment that shows that people who generally experience higher levels of inclusion in their lives respond more strongly to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures. It is concluded that people's reactions to procedural justice are moderated by people's level of inclusion in social groups.

show abstract

“…The importance of relational concerns is underscored by studies showing that the relationalinteractional component of procedures is especially important in determining people's responses to the way they are treated (Koper, van Knippenberg, Bouhuijs, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1993;Tyler, 1994;Tyler & Bies, 1990;cf. interactional justice;Bies & Moag, 1986;dignitary concerns;Lind et al, 1990) and that the perceived fairness of procedures may affect people's self-evaluations (Koper et al, 1993;Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998;Tyler et al, 1996).' Whereas procedural considerations have a strong link with relational concerns, outcome considerations, in contrast, relate more to resource-based, or instrumental, concerns (Tyler, 1994(Tyler, , 1997(Tyler, , 1999.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-esteem and outcome fairness: Differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations.

Vermunt¹,

Knippenberg²,

Knippenberg³

et al. 2001

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of a survey of 222 detainees in Dutch jails and police stations showed that outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with high self-esteem were more strongly related to outcome considerations than to procedural considerations, whereas outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with low selfesteem were more strongly related to procedural considerations than to outcome considerations. It was proposed that these differences were due to the fact that (a) procedures more strongly express a social evaluation than outcomes and (b) individuals with low self-esteem are more concerned with social evaluations than individuals with high self-esteem. The implications of the results for other individualdifferences factors and other populations than detainees are discussed.It has long been recognized that fairness is of great importance to individuals' feelings and actions in social interaction. For instance, fairness has been linked to satisfaction with and acceptance of a decision (e.g.,

show abstract

Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model.

Cited by 685 publications

References 63 publications

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

Group Belongingness and Procedural Justice: Social Inclusion and Exclusion by Peers Affects the Psychology of Voice.

Self-esteem and outcome fairness: Differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About