Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
In the present study, we investigated whether respectful treatment shaped participants’ perceptions of procedural justice during interactions with out-group authorities, and whether the effects of respectful treatment would extend to participants’ attachment to their in-group and to the authority’s social group. We hypothesised that the nature of the relationship between the out-group and a participant’s social group (diametrically opposed vs. not opposed to one another) would moderate the effect of respect on participants’ procedural justice judgements, attachment to the in-group, and attachment to the out-group. Participants (n = 186) read a short, fictitious news story describing an interaction between a fellow in-group member (the subordinate) and an authority. As predicted, respectful treatment increased perceptions of procedural justice and also led participants to feel more attached to the authority’s social group. Contrary to expectation, participants’ attachment to their in-group was not affected by treatment, but instead by authority group membership: interactions with an authority from a social group diametrically opposed to the participant’s social group led participants to become significantly more attached to their in-group, regardless of the authority’s behaviour (respectful vs. disrespectful) in the interaction. Results are discussed in terms of practical strategies for authorities to effectively manage interactions with out-group subordinates.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Ashmore, R. D., Jussim, L., & Wilder, D. (2001). Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baldassarri, D., & Grossman, G. (2013). The effect of group attachment and social position on prosocial behaviour: Evidence from lab-in-the-field experiments. Social Structure and Prosocial behaviour, 8, 1–9.
Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62(8), 728. CrossRef
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778. CrossRef
Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 984–1014. CrossRef
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. CrossRef
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119. CrossRef
Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing: A Journal of Policing and Practice, 4, 403–410. CrossRef
Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279–1292. CrossRef
Heuer, L., & Stroessner, S. J. (2011). The multi-value basis of procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 541–553. CrossRef
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40–45. CrossRef
Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical. Psychological Record, 43(3), 395.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In Handbook of social psychology.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84. CrossRef
Lind, E. A., & Earley, P. C. (1992). Procedural justice and culture. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 227–242. CrossRef
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, C. P. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959. CrossRef
Lind, E. A., Lissak, R. E., & Conlon, A. E. (1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 338–350. CrossRef
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Publishing. CrossRef
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. CrossRef
Paxton, P., & Moody, J. (2003). Structure and sentiment: Explaining emotional attachment to group. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 34–47. CrossRef
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment (pp. 155–184). Norman, OK: The University Book Exchange.
Sivasubramaniam, D., Klettke, B., Clough, J., Schuller, R., & Oleyar, K. (2015). Jurors’ consideration of inadmissible evidence: A motivational explanation. Journal of Judicial Administration, 24, 154–171.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. CrossRef
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J., Walker, L., LaTour, S., & Houlden, P. (1974). Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review, 26, 1271–1289. CrossRef
Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344. CrossRef
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838. CrossRef
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioural engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191. CrossRef
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81. CrossRef
- Respectful Inter-Group Interactions: A Method for Revising Group Attachment?
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta