The present research examined whether reactions to procedural discrimination (favoring self vs. favoring other procedures) are qualified by whether the authority is an ingroup or an outgroup member. We argue that because we tend to demonstrate ingroup bias in an intergroup context, we should react more positively when we are favored over an outgroup other than when an outgroup other is favored over us. Furthermore, we reason that because compared with outgroup authorities, ingroup authorities are perceived to be more related to us, we should react more strongly to procedural discrimination exercised by the ingroup authority. Across the two studies, results support our predictions. Results are discussed with reference to the social identity perspective and the group-value model.
Bettencourt, B.A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D.L. (2001). Status differences and ingroup bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520-542.
2.
Brown, R. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
3.
Cohen, R.L. (1991). Membership, intergroup relations, and justice . In R. Vermunt & H. Steensma (Eds.), Social justice in human relations (Vol. 1, pp. 239-258). New York: Plenum Press.
4.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P.E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
5.
Colquitt, J.A. (2004). Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 633-646.
6.
De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 157-173.
7.
De Cremer, D., & van Hiel, A. (2006). Effects of another person's fair treatment on one's own emotions and behaviors: The moderating role of how much the other cares for you. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 231-249.
8.
Duck, J.M., & Fielding, K.S. (2003). Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: Implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 387-401.
9.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J.A. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
11.
Grienberger, I.V., Rutte, C.G., & van Knippenberg, A.F.M. (1997). Influence of social comparisons of outcomes and procedures on fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 913-919.
12.
Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds hostility: The effects of relative deprivation and gratification on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 900-912.
13.
Hogg, M.A. (2005). The social identity perspective. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 133-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14.
Hogg, M.A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111-136). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.
15.
Hornsey, M.J., Spears, R., Cremers, I., & Hogg, M.A. (2003). Relations between high and low power groups: The importance of legitimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 216-227.
16.
Jetten, J., Duck, J., Terry, D.J., & O'Brien, A. (2002). Being attuned to intergroup differences in mergers: The role of aligned leaders for low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1194-1201.
17.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen , M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willies (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
18.
Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justiceNew York: Plenum Press.
19.
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction . Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1-20.
20.
Platow, M.J., Hoar, S., Reid, S., Harley, K., & Morrison, D. (1997). Endorsement of distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 465-494.
21.
Platow, M.J., Reid, S., & Andrew, S. (1998). Leadership endorsement: The role of distributive and procedural behavior in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 35-47.
22.
Smith, H.J., & Ortiz, D.J. (2002). Is it just me? The different consequences of personal and group relative deprivation. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 91-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Smith, H.J., Tyler, T.R., Huo, Y.J., Ortiz, D.J., & Lind, E.A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470-493.
24.
Stahl, T., van Prooijen, J.-W., & Vermunt, R. (2004). On the psychology of procedural justice: Reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 173-189.
25.
Tyler, T.R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.
26.
Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic Press.
27.
Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (2002). Understanding the nature of fraternalistic deprivation: Does group-based deprivation involve fair outcomes or fair treatment? In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 44-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560-577.
29.
van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 482-498.
30.
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E.A. (2001). The psychology of own versus others' treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1324-1333.
31.
van den Bos, K., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2001). Referent Cognitions Theory: The role of closeness of reference points in the psychology of voice . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 616-626.
32.
van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance . European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411-428.
33.
van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95-104.
34.
van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., Lind, E.A., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2006). How do people react to negative procedures? On the moderating role of authority's biased attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 632-645.
35.
van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353-1361.
36.
van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2004). Group belongingness and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 66-79.
37.
van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2005). Procedural justice and intragroup status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 664-676.
38.
Weiss, H.M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786-794.
