Endorsement of distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations

Abstract

Differences in the strength of endorsement for distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations were measured. Fair leaders were expected to receive stronger endorsements than unfair leaders in interpersonal situations. This difference, however, was expected to attenuate, if not reverse in intergroup situations when the unfairness favoured the ingroup. An attenuation effect obtained in Experiment 1 (N=49) using ad hoc groups in a laboratory setting. Attenuation and reversal effects obtained, respectively, in Experiments 2 (N=314) and 3 (N=213) using preexisting groups (students and New Zealanders, respectively) in a scenario setting. Fairness ratings followed patterns similar to leadership endorsements in Experiments 2 and 3. Finally, Experiment 3 showed a reversal in participants' private attitudes toward an issue about which the leader expressed an opinion. These data extend previous research on leadership endorsement and are consistent with predictions derived from Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality

“…First, that leadership is indeed contingent upon leaders being perceived to be prototypical of a social identity that they share with followers (Duck & Fielding, 1999, 2003Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998;Jetten, Duck, Terry, & O'Brien, 2002;Platow, van Knippenberg, Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Spears, in press;van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003b;all after Turner, 1991). Second, that in order to be influential and effective, leaders need to represent and define social identity in context (Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam, 2004;Platow, Hoar, Reid, Harley, & Morrison, 1997;Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001). …”

Procedural justice and status judgements: The moderating role of leader ingroup prototypicality

“…Those researchers that have adopted the social identity approach have traditionally studied the perceived justice of the group leader by comparing the fairness that is directed at the ingroup and at the outgroups respectively. These studies (e.g., Platow, Hoar, Reid, Harley, & Morrison, 1997) have revealed that in intergroup situations (and among highly identified group members) leaders who unfairly favored the ingroup at the expense of the outgroup received stronger endorsements than fair leaders. Research concentrating on the group-value model, in turn, has not usually taken comparative aspects into consideration.…”

Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda

“…Fielding and Hogg (1997) observed the same moderating effect of social identity salience for the relationship between group prototypicality and emergent leadership in a correlational study of outward bound groups. Platow, Hoar, Reid, Harley, and Morrison (1997) experimentally studied responses to leaders that either favored their group (i.e., were group-oriented) or were evenhanded in an allocation decision concerning own group (ingroup) and another group (outgroup) and found that ingroup-favoring leaders were more strongly endorsed, but only under conditions of high social identification. De Cremer and Van Vugt (2002) studied follower cooperation in an experimental game in response to a leader who was either highly committed to the group (i.e., group-oriented) or high on leadership skills (also see below).…”