1996
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00664.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Superordinate Identification, Subgroup Identification, and Justice Concerns: Is Separatism the Problem; Is Assimilation the Answer?

Abstract: The diversity of American society raises concerns about whether authorities can maintain social cohesion amid competing interests and values The group-value model of justice suggests that authorities function more effectively when they are perceived as fair (e g, benevolent, neutral, and respectful) However, such relational evaluations may be effective only if authorities represent a group with which people identify In a diverse society, subgroup memberships may assume special importance People who identify pr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

18
351
5
3

Year Published

1998
1998
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 385 publications
(377 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
18
351
5
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Smith et al, 1998). In contrast, it has been suggested that people attach relatively more importance to instrumental concerns when dealing with outgroup authorities than when dealing with ingroup authorities (Huo et al, 1996). Indeed, a recent study suggests that people's fairness evaluations are more strongly influenced by outcome favourability when faced with an outgroup authority than when faced with an ingroup authority (Duck & Fielding, 2003).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Smith et al, 1998). In contrast, it has been suggested that people attach relatively more importance to instrumental concerns when dealing with outgroup authorities than when dealing with ingroup authorities (Huo et al, 1996). Indeed, a recent study suggests that people's fairness evaluations are more strongly influenced by outcome favourability when faced with an outgroup authority than when faced with an ingroup authority (Duck & Fielding, 2003).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Furthermore, one would also expect procedural fairness to have a greater impact on people who identify strongly with the group than on people who identify less with the group. Both these hypotheses have received some support from correlational as well as experimental research (Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996;, 1997Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998;Tyler & Degoey, 1995, and have been referred to as the group membership effect (Smith et al, 1998) and the identification effect (Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997) respectively.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the current research we would like to try to fill this void. Building on the relational model (Lind & Tyler, 1988;Tyler & Lind, 1992) and empirical findings within the tradition of the relational model (Huo et al, 1996;Smith et al, 1998;Ståhl et al, 2004;, we argue here that people's own level of inclusion in a group has important consequences for how people react to procedural fairness. More specifically, the relational model has argued that fair procedures from authorities convey symbolic messages of inclusion, because procedural fairness implies that one is a respected and valued member within a group (Lind & Tyler, 1988;Tyler & Lind, 1992).…”
Section: Group Belongingness and Procedural Justicementioning
confidence: 88%
“…That is, these findings reveal that social inclusion and exclusion by peers work in association with procedural justice to determine social reactions. Building on previous research on group membership and procedural justice (e.g., Huo et al, 1996;Smith et al, 1998;Ståhl et al, 2004;, the relational model (Tyler & Lind, 1992), the group-belongingness literature (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and theories on moral exclusion (Deutsch, 1974;Opotow, 1990;cf. Huo, 1997), the findings presented here indicate that procedural fairness affects people's reactions more strongly when they are included in than when they are excluded from social groups by their peers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, social psychological literature suggests that identification with a more inclusive category prevents the occurrence of intergroup conflict (see Brown, 2000;Gaertner et al, 2000;Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996 for overviews). Gaertner et al's review of the extensive work on the common ingroup identity model evidences that intergroup bias and conflict can be reduced by factors that transform participants' representation of memberships from two to one more inclusive group.…”
Section: Nested Identities and Identity Politicsmentioning
confidence: 99%