The current research investigated an “ironic” consequence of a perceived procedural fairness climate vis-à-vis disadvantaged groups. Specifically, we examined whether the perception that societal institutions treat one’s underprivileged group in a procedurally fair way negatively impacts upon minority group members’ support for social change. Six studies (total N = 1,076) supported our claims. In survey Study 1 (Belgian ethnic minorities), procedural fairness climate perceptions were negatively related to support for social change. Cross-sectional Studies 2 (colored South Africans) and 3 (Hispanic Americans) further showed that this relationship is mediated by beliefs in minority mobility. Finally, Studies 4–6 (Asian and African Americans) provided experimental evidence corroborating our causal mediation model. Our findings align with literature demonstrating similar “ironic” effects of procedural fairness among advantaged group members, as they illustrate that the perception of a procedural fairness climate can analogously prevent disadvantaged group members from advocating changes that could alleviate their state of deprivation.
AlexanderS.RudermanM. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048015
2.
Barrett-HowardE.TylerT. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.296
3.
BrandtM. J.KuppensT.SpearsR.AndrighettoL.AutinF.BabincakP.BadeaC.BaeJ.BatruchA.BeckerJ. C.BocianK.BodrožaB.BourguignonD.BukowskiM.ButeraF.ButlerS. E.ChryssochoouX.ConwayP.CrawfordJ. T.. . . ZimmermanJ. L. (2020). Subjective status and perceived legitimacy across countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 921–942. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2694
4.
BrewerM. B.CampbellD. T. (1976). Ethno-centrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence. Halsted Press.
5.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2008). Experimental approaches to mediation: A new guide for assessing causal pathways [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Political Science, Yale University.
6.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933
7.
CakalH.HewstoneM.SchwärG.HeathA. (2011). An investigation of the social identity model of collective action and the “sedative” effect of intergroup contact among Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x
8.
CampbellL. A.KaufmanR. L. (2006). Racial differences in household wealth: Beyond Black and White. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 24, 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2005.06.001
9.
ChampélyS. (2018). Pwr: Basic functions for power analysis (R package Version 1.2-2) [Computer software].
10.
ChomaB.HodsonG.JagayatA.HoffarthM. R. (2020). Right-wing ideology as a predictor of collective action: A test across four political issue domains. Political Psychology, 41, 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12615
11.
ClaytonD. M. (2018). Black Lives Matter and the civil rights movement: A comparative analysis of two social movements in the United States. Journal of Black Studies, 49, 448–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934718764099
12.
ColquittJ. A.LongD. M.RodellJ. B.Halvorsen-GanepolaM. D. K. (2015). Adding the “in” to justice: A qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038131
DayM. V.FiskeS. T. (2017). Movin’ on up? How perceptions of social mobility affect our willingness to defend the system. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678454
16.
DierckxK.ValckeB.van HielA. (2021). The trickle-down effect of procedural fairness on perceptions of daily discrimination: How societal actors can build social trust among minority members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2742
17.
DierckxK.van HielA.ValckeB. (2020). Do minorities perceive procedural fairness merely in terms of ethnic bias suppression? Evaluation of the concept of fairness in multicultural conflicts. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1726733
18.
DixonJ.TroppL. R.DurrheimK.TredouxC. (2010). “Let them eat harmony”: Prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410363366
19.
DoosjeB.SpearsR.EllemersN.KoomenW. (1999). Perceived group variability in intergroup relations: The distinctive role of social identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 41–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000017
20.
DoverT. L.MajorB.KaiserC. R. (2014). Diversity initiatives, status, and system-justifying beliefs: When and how diversity efforts de-legitimize discrimination claims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213502560
21.
EllemersN. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000013
22.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Ingroup identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.617
23.
FisherR. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. Springer.
24.
GeorgeacO. A.RattanA. (2021). Perceiving progress toward social equality: A model of signals and sense-making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.012
GrimesM. (2006). Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00299.x
27.
HewstoneM.SwartH. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x
28.
HillstromL. C. (2018). The #MeToo movement. ABC-CLIO.
29.
HoggM. A.GaffneyA. M. (2018). Group processes and intergroup relations. In GhettiS. (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 1–34). Wiley.
30.
JettenJ.MolsF.SelvanathanH. P. (2020). How economic inequality fuels the rise and persistence of the Yellow Vest movement. International Review of Social Psychology, 33, 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.356
31.
JettenJ.WangZ.SteffensN. K.MolsF.PetersK.VerkuytenM. (2017). A social identity analysis of responses to economic inequality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.011
32.
JostJ. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 263–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12297
33.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
34.
JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.
35.
KaiserC. R.DruryB. J.SpaldingK. E.CheryanS.O’BrienL. T. (2009). The ironic consequences of Obama’s election: Decreased support for social justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.006
36.
KaiserC. R.MajorB.JurcevicI.DoverT. L.BradyL. M.ShapiroJ. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030838
LeachC. W.AllenA. M. (2017). The social psychology of the Black Lives Matter meme and movement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417719319
LeventhalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In GergenK. J.GreenbergM. S.WeissR. H. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Plenum.
43.
LovakovA.AgadullinaE. (2017). Empirically derived guidelines for interpreting effect size in social psychology. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2epc4
44.
MajorB.GramzowR. H.McCoyS. K.LevinS.SchmaderT.SidaniusJ. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.269-282
45.
MilanS. (2013). Social movements and their technologies: Wiring social change. Springer.
46.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
47.
PolitiE.GiroudA.GreenE. G.MalokuE. (2020). Sedative effects of intergroup contact on support for ethnic activism among Kosovo Albanians in Switzerland: The interplay of ethnic, national, and dual identification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(7), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12670
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Journal of Statistical Computing, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
SaguyT.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
55.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
SturmerS.SimonB. (2004). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 59–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000117
58.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press.
59.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole.
60.
TauschN.SaguyT.BrysonJ. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social change? Its impact on collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a disadvantaged group. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12127
61.
TurnerL. (2009). Institutions and activism: Crisis and opportunity for a German labor movement in decline. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 62(3), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390906200302
62.
TylerT. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053563
ValckeB.van HielA.OnraetE.DierckxK. (2020). Procedural fairness enacted by societal actors increases social trust and social acceptance among ethnic minority members through the promotion of sense of societal belonging. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50, 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12696
66.
ValckeB.van HielA.van RoeyT.van de PutteB.DierckxK. (2020). Societal actors shape collective identities of minorities: Procedural fairness climate effects on identification, subjective well-being and psychological health. Social Justice Research, 33, 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-020-00357-6
67.
Van den BosK. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.931
68.
Van den BosK.van der VeldenL.LindA. E. (2014). On the role of perceived procedural justice in citizens’ reactions to government decisions and the handling of conflicts. Utrecht Law Review, 10, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.287
69.
Van der ToornJ.JostJ. T. (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “ideology and system justification processes.”Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214531509
70.
Van ZomerenM.SpearsR.FischerA. H.LeachC. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is!: Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649
VermuntR.SteensmaH. (2016). Procedural justice. In SabbaghC.SchmittM. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 219–236). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_12
73.
WrightS. C. (1997). Ambiguity, shared consensus and collective action: Generating collective protest in response to tokenism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1277–1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312005
74.
WrightS. C. (2001). Restricted intergroup boundaries: Tokenism, ambiguity and the tolerance of injustice. In JostJ.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 223–254). Cambridge University Press.
75.
WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). Psychology Press.
76.
WrightS. C.TaylorD. M.MoghaddamF. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.994
77.
YipT.CheahC. S. L.KiangL.HallG. C. N. (2021). Rendered invisible: Are Asian Americans a model or a marginalized minority?American Psychologist, 76, 575–581. http://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000857
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
