Group Belongingness and Procedural Justice: Social Inclusion and Exclusion by Peers Affects the Psychology of Voice.

Abstract

The authors focus on the relation between group membership and procedural justice. They argue that whether people are socially included or excluded by their peers influences their reactions to unrelated experiences of procedural justice. Findings from 2 experiments corroborate the prediction that reactions to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures are affected more strongly when people are included in a group than when they are excluded from a group. These findings are extended with a 3rd experiment that shows that people who generally experience higher levels of inclusion in their lives respond more strongly to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures. It is concluded that people's reactions to procedural justice are moderated by people's level of inclusion in social groups.

Self-construal level and voice procedures: The individual self as psychological basis for procedural fairness effects

“…The idea that procedural fairness effects relate to the social self is based on previous empirical findings which revealed that an increased connectedness with the social environment produces stronger procedural fairness effects (Huo et al, 1996;Smith et al, 1998;Van Prooijen et al, 2004). How can the present findings be reconciled with these previous findings?…”

“…Voice procedures raise outcome expectancies (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), and more importantly, voice procedures inform recipients that they are respected, have high status, and are regarded as fully-fledged members of their community (Tyler & Blader, 2003;Tyler & Lind, 1992). Empirical research indeed confirms relations between procedural justice and feelings of status or belongingness (De Cremer, 2002;Tyler, 1994;Tyler, DeGoey, & Smith, 1996;Van Prooijen et al, 2002, 2004.…”

“…Voice procedures raise outcome expectancies (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), and more importantly, voice procedures inform recipients that they are respected, have high status, and are regarded as fully-fledged members of their community (Tyler & Blader, 2003;Tyler & Lind, 1992). Empirical research indeed confirms relations between procedural justice and feelings of status or belongingness (De Cremer, 2002;Tyler, 1994;Tyler, DeGoey, & Smith, 1996;Van Prooijen et al, 2002, 2004.Recipients are likely to value the rewards that are associated with procedural justice (e.g., respect, admiration) because of the positive implications for their own feelings of selfworth Van Prooijen et al, 2008). Of particular importance to the present purposes, it stands to reason that people want to receive the rewards of justice for who they are, because of their own qualities, and because of their unique contributions to their community.…”

“…Experiences of procedural justice and injustice are products of people's interactions with other people (e.g., Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996;Lind & Tyler, 1988;Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998;Tyler & Blader, 2003;Van Prooijen, Van den Bos, & Wilke, 2004). This social nature of procedural justice has led researchers to conclude that it is the social self that shapes procedural fairness effects.…”

The Impact of Ostracism on Work Effort: A Comparison between Turkish and Azerbaijani Employees

“…al., 2008;Oaten, et. al., 2008), some of which focus on the issue in social group contexts (Van Prooijen, et. al., 2004;Gonsalkorale, Williams, 2007;Krill, et.…”