Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Platow, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Andrew, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 1, No. 1, 35-47 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430298011004
© 1998 SAGE Publications

Leadership Endorsement: The Role of Distributive and Procedural Behavior in Interpersonal and Intergroup Contexts

Michael J. Platow

School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, m.platow{at}latrobe.edu.au

Scott Reid

School of Psychology, University of Queensland

Sarah Andrew

Department of Psychology, University of Otago

Previous research (Platow, Hoar, Reid, Harley, & Morrison, 1997) showed that the difference in the strength of endorsements provided for a distributively fair over an unfair leader in interpersonal contexts attenuates when the unfairness is ingroup-favoring in intergroup contexts. We extended this to the realm of procedural fairness, and manipulated a leader's distributive fairness, procedural fairness, and the interpersonal versus intergroup context of these behaviors. Results revealed independent intergroup attenuation effects as a function of distributive and procedural fairness; procedural fairness did not moderate the distributive fairness by social context interaction. These findings are discussed within a social identity framework.

Key Words: distributive fairness • intergroup relations • interpersonal relations • leadership endorsement • procedural fairness

References

  • Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317-334.
  • Bourhis, R. Y., Turner, J. C., & Gagnon, A. (1997). Interdependence, social identity and discrimination. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decision: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bruins, J. J., Platow, M. J., & Ng, S. H. (1995). Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations: Issues, solutions and extensions. Social Justice Research, 8, 103-121.[CrossRef]
  • Chin, M. G., & McClintock, C. G. (1993). The effects of intergroup discrimination and social values on level of self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 63-75.
  • Cohen, R. L. (1991). Membership, intergroup relations, and justice. In R. Vermunt & H. Steensma (Eds.), Social lustice in human relations: Vol. 1. Societal and psychological origins of justice (pp. 239-258). New York: Plenum Press.
  • Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorisation, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 97-106.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
  • Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 263-292). Chichester: Wiley.
  • Evans, J. (1948). Johnny Rocco. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 357-383.[CrossRef]
  • Gagnon, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1996). Discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Social identity or self-interest?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1289-1301.[Abstract]
  • Hogg, M. (1997a). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. In J. Davis & E. Witte (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol 2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 227-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Hogg, M. A. (1997b). Intragroup processes, group structure and social identity. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social identity: The developing legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 65-95). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
  • Hogg, M. A., & Sunderland, J. (1991). Self-esteem and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 51-62.
  • Hunter, J. A., Platow, M. J., Bell, L. M., Kypri, K., & Lewis, C. A. (1997). Intergroup bias and self-evaluation: Domain-specific self-esteem, threats to identity and dimensional importance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 405-426.
  • Hunter, J. A., Platow, M. J., Howard, M. L., & Stringer, M. (1996). Social identity and intergroup evaluative bias: Realistic categories and domain specific self-esteem in a conflict setting. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 631-647.[CrossRef]
  • Judd, C., M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Kerr, N. L., & Stanfel, J. A. (1993). Role schemata and member motivation in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 432-442.[Abstract]
  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
  • Lord, R. G., & Alliger, G. M. (1985). A comparison of four information processing models of leadership and social perceptions. Human Relations, 38, 47-65.[Abstract]
  • Miller, K. M. (1970). Free-association responses of English and Australian students to 100 words from the Kent-Rosanoff word association test. In L. Postman & G. Keppel (Eds.), Norms of word association. New York: Academic Press.
  • Oldenquist, A. (1982). Loyalties. Journal of Philosophy, 79, 173-193.[CrossRef]
  • Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1-20.
  • Platow, M. J. (1997). On the psychological meaning of distributive behaviour. Paper presented at the 5th Brisbane Symposium on Social Identity Theory, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Platow, M. J., Harley, K., Hunter, J. A., Hanning, P., Shave, R., & O'Connell, A. (1997). Interpreting ingroup-favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 107-118.
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • Platow, M. J., McClintock, C. G., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1990). Predicting intergroup fairness and ingroup bias in the Minimal Group Paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 221-239.
  • Platow, M. J., O'Connell, A., Shave, R., & Hanning, P. (1995). Social evaluations of fair and unfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 363-381.
  • Platow, M. J., & Shave, R. (1994). Scales: A Turbo Pascal unit for presenting simple attitude scales. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26, 372.
  • Schacter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-207.
  • Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarisation in computer- mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.[ISI]
  • Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
  • ThibautJ., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New York: Wiley.
  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541-566.
  • Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34.
  • Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner (with M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 42-67). New York: Blackwell.
  • Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (in press). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants' evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18, 51-74.[CrossRef]
  • Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
  • Tyler, T., & Dawes, R. M. (1993). Fairness in groups: Comparing the self-interest and social identity perspectives. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives injustice: Theory and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482-497.[CrossRef]
  • Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 281-292.[CrossRef]
  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1990). Intrinsic versus community-based justice models: When does group membership matter?Journal of Social Issues, 46, 83-94.
  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic Press.
  • Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 21-43.
  • Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 103-117.
  • Wit, A., & Wilke, H. (1988). Subordinates' endorsement of an allocating leader in a commons dilemma: An equity theoretical approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9, 151-168.[CrossRef]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
M. J. Hornsey, L. Blackwood, and A. O'brien
Speaking for Others: The Pros and Cons of Group Advocates using Collective Language
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2005; 8(3): 245 - 257.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
S. A. Haslam, M. J. Platow, J. C. Turner, K. J. Reynolds, C. McGarty, P. J. Oakes, S. Johnson, M. K. Ryan, and K. Veenstra
Social Identity and the Romance of Leadership: The Importance of being Seen to be 'Doing it for Us'
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2001; 4(3): 191 - 205.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
R. Martin and O. Epitropaki
Role of Organizational Identification on Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs), Transformational Leadership and Work Attitudes
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2001; 4(3): 247 - 262.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
J. M. Duck and K. S. Fielding
Leaders and Subgroups: One of Us or One of them?
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 1999; 2(3): 203 - 230.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Platow, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Andrew, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?