This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Utz, S. Articles by Sassenberg, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Distributive Justice in Common-Bond and Common-Identity Groups

Free University Amsterdam, sonja.utz{at}phil.tu-chemnitz.de

Kai Sassenberg

Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena

Two experiments tested whether common-bond groups (attachment based on interpersonal bonds between the members) and common-identity groups (attachment based on attraction to the group as a whole; Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994) make different fairness judgments. Overall, the use of the equality heuristic (Messick, 1993) was expected. Moreover, based on social identity theory, we predicted that members of common-bond groups show an egocentric bias, whereas members of common-identity groups forgo their individual goals for the group goal. In both experiments, positive and negative outcomes were distributed. Experiment 1 manipulated the degree of involvement, Experiment 2 varied responsibility for the outcome. Results of both studies supported the hypothesis, thus emphasizing the importance of the distinction between common-bond and common-identity groups.

Key Words: distributive fairness • egocentric bias • interpersonal attraction • social identity • social justice

References

• Aikawa, A. (1981). Individual vs. group decisions on reward allocation. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 52, 113-119.
• Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.[CrossRef]
• Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effects of type of relationship and task performance on choice on distribution rules. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 402-408.[Abstract]
• Bagarozzi, D. A. (1982). The effects of cohesiveness on distributive justice. Journal of Psychology, 110, 267-273.
• Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 131-144.[CrossRef]
• Campbell, W. K., Sedikides, C., Reeder, G. D., & Elliott, A. J. (2000). Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self-serving bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 229-239.
• Chen, X. (1999). Work team cooperation: The effects of structural and motivational changes. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 181-192). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. (1996). Gain-loss-frame in outcome-interdependence: Does it influence equality or equity considerations?European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 315-324.[CrossRef]
• De Graaf, D., & van Yperen, N. W. (2000). Rechtvaardigheid in organisaties: Gelijkheid of billijkheid? [Justice in organizations: Equality or equity?]. Paper presented at the ASPO-congress, 30 November-1 December 2000, Eindhoven.
• Griffith, W. I. (1989). The allocation of negative outcomes. Advances in Group Processes, 6, 107-137.
• Harris, R. J. (1980). Equity judgments in hypothetical, four-person partnerships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 96-115.[CrossRef]
• Higgins, E. T., & May, D. (2001). Individual self-regulatory functions. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.) Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 47-67). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
• Lerner, M. J. (1974). The justice motive: ‘Equity’ and ‘Parity’ among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 539-550.
• Leventhal, G. S., & Anderson, D. (1970). Self-interest and the maintenance of equity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 57-62.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Messick, D. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 11-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Messick, D. M., & Schell, T. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making. Acta Psychologica, 80, 311-323.[CrossRef]
• Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418-434.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Musch, J., & Reips, U.-D. (2000). The brief history of web experimenting: A survey. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 61-88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Ohtsubo, Y., & Kameda, T. (1998). The function of equality heuristic in distributive bargaining: Negotiated allocation of costs and benefits in a demand revelation context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 90-108.[CrossRef]
• O’Malley, M. N., & Becker, L. A. (1984). Removing the egocentric bias: The relevance of distress cues to evaluation of fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 235-242.[Abstract]
• Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2000). Refining the cognitive redefinition of the group: Deindividuation effects in common bond vs. common identity groups. In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea, & S. Reicher (Eds.), SIDE issues centre stage: Recent developments in studies of de-individuation in groups (pp. 63-77). Amsterdam: KNAW.
• Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484-493.[Abstract]
• Roch, S. G., Lane, J. A. S., Samuelson, C. D., Allison, S. T., & Dent, J. L. (2000). Cognitive load and the equality heuristic: A two-stage model of resource overconsumption in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 185-212.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Sassenberg, K. (in press). Common bond and common identity groups on the internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice.
• Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, M. (2001). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as approach and avoidance. Paper submitted for publication.
• Schubert, T., & Otten, S. (in press). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity.
• Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Smith, E. R. (2001). Overlapping mental representations of self and group: Evidence and implications. Paper presented at the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology, Sydney, March.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
• Thompson, L. L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 176-197.[CrossRef]
• Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 177-236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Törnblom, K. Y. (1998). Mode of accomplishing positive and negative outcomes: Its effect on fairness evaluations. Social Justice Research, 11, 423-441.[CrossRef]
• Törnblom, K. Y., & Jonsson, D. R. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 249-261.[CrossRef]
• Törnblom, K. Y., & Jonsson, D. R. (1987). Distribution vs. retribution: The perceived justice of the contribution and equality principles for cooperative and competitive relationships. Acta Sociologica, 30, 25-52.
• Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585-600.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Van Dijk, E., Engelen, M., Van Leeuwen, E., Monden, L., & Sluijter, E. (1999). Distributive justice and the allocation of costs, losses and profits. Social Justice Research, 12, 5-18.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Wenzel, M. (1997). Soziale Kategorisierungen im Bereich distributiver Gerechtigkeit. [Social cateogorizations in the realm of distributive justice]. Münster: Waxmann.
• Wenzel, M. (2000). Justice and identity: The significance of inclusion for perceptions of entitlement and the justice motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 157-176.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Utz, S. Articles by Sassenberg, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?