The social psychological processes of ‘procedural justice’: Concepts, critiques and opportunities

Radburn, Matthew; Stott, Clifford

doi:10.1177/1748895818780200

Cited by 56 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there is an assumption in collective action research that participation in all kinds of collective actions shares the same psychological mechanisms, some scholars argue that there are conceptual distinctions among offline collective actions, protests, riots, and uprisings (Radburn & Stott, 2019;Wahlström, 2011). Further studies should focus on the moderator role of the distinctions between the action types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Identification and Collective Action Participation in the Internet Age: A Meta-Analysis

Akfırat¹,

Uysal²,

Bayrak³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a debate about the dynamics of participation in collective actions in the Internet age whether different or not from the engage in conventional ones. Some scholars claimed that the role of shared social identity is relatively unimportant in the Internet age. In order to clarify whether collective actions in the digital age still rely on social identification or not, we conducted a meta-analysis of 40 studies (N = 16,933) focused on digitally-mediated collective actions. We examined the relationship between social identification and collective action, and the possible moderator effects of group type, participation type, and WEIRDness of sample. We found a strong relationship between social identification and collective action participation. Group type was a significant moderator showing the relationship is much stronger in the emergent group compared to the pre-existing group. We discussed the theoretical implications of the results emphasized the basic dynamics of collective actions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Identification and Collective Action Participation in the Internet Age: A Meta-Analysis

Akfırat¹,

Uysal²,

Bayrak³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People actively evaluate authority decisions through the lens of group identity. Thus, our theorising points to a more dynamic processes of responding to authority decision, taking contextual variables into the account, much in line with the plea by Radburn and Stott (2018) to consider the interplay between social identity and perceptions of fairness a non-static. As such, negative attitudes towards an outgroup stemming from the past conflict can shape what it means to be a member of this AUTHORITY FAIRNESS AND INTERGROUP ATTITUDES community in light who authorities appear to serve.…”

Section: Moving the Theory Forwardmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Yet, when it comes to the evaluation of fairness itself, the theories remain largely individualistic, dealing with persons' private judgements of their own experiences with authority figures. Authorities do not, however, only interact with one citizen at a time, making these theories prone to ignoring group dynamics (see also Radburn & Stott, 2018). Even if the decisions are not about groups in general, the authorities may be making decisions 8 AUTHORITY FAIRNESS AND INTERGROUP ATTITUDES about individuals, explicitly or implicitly, on the basis of their social group membership.…”

Section: The Group-level Analysis Of Fairness Judgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nature of intergroup interactions has indeed been ignored in the procedural justice research concerning authorities (Radburn & Stott, 2018). Given that people care about authority fairness aimed at them and those they identify with (but perhaps to the lesser extent with those they do not identify with), the relationship between authorities and subordinates must be conceived as a multipartite one, with an authority serving more than just a homogenous group of individuals (Wenzel & Jobling, 2006).…”

Section: The Intergroup Context Of Fairness Judgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authority fairness as contingent on intergroup attitudes: Review and expansion of relational models of procedural justice

Urbanska¹,

Pehrson²,

Platow³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relational models of procedural justice propose that fair procedures from authorities communicate that one is an affirmed member of the society that they represent. Authorities who use principles of procedural justice are more likely to be seen as legitimate, increasing compliance and cooperation from the public. However, ensuring that authority decisions will be accepted is not necessarily a guaranteed outcome of employing fair procedures. The empirical evidence discussed here questions what drives perceptions of authority fairness and decision acceptance by considering how social identities shape fairness perceptions. We argue that understanding these processes is crucial for authorities dealing with complex intergroup-level mediations. We support these claims by presenting an experimental study conducted in the context of post-conflict relations between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. We show that people with more negative outgroup attitudes saw restrictive police actions as fairer when these actions targeted the outgroup (versus ingroup), and more strongly preferred for facilitative police decisions concerning the ingroup (versus outgroup). In contrast, people with positive outgroup attitudes did not evaluate police decisions depending on their own community belonging. The findings suggest that the nature of intergroup relations is a relevant element in responses to authority decisions. We outline new directions to theoretical developments of how authorities can effectively serve social systems that they represent.

show abstract

“…This is what Radburn et al (2016) referred to as relational identification, which is related to higher cooperation rates and perceiving authorities as more legitimate. Moreover, government identification is highly dynamic and context-dependent (Radburn & Stott, 2018) so that citizens typically place varying levels of psychological distance between themselves and the authorities (Braithwaite, 2003). This is theoretically distinct from populist attitudes.…”

Section: Social Identity Processes In Political Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power to the people: Disidentification with the government and the support for populism

Urbanska¹,

Pehrson²,

Guimond³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populist attitudes have been shown to predict voting behaviour. These attitudes consist of a belief that everyday citizens are better judges of what is best for their own country than politicians and that the political elites are corrupt. As such, a clear ‘us’ (pure and good everyday citizens) and ‘them’ (the evil political elite) rhetoric is present. In the present research, we propose that identification with the government may predict whether people would vote for, and whether they have voted in the past for, a populist party (either from the political left or the political right). The present research (N = 562), carried out among French citizens, showed that lower government identification related to past voting behaviour, current voting intentions and likelihood to switch from a non-populist to a populist party. Identification with the government was also negatively associated to intention to abstain from voting. Moreover, government identification was a stronger predictor of these voting-related outcomes than the recently developed populist attitudes measures. Unexpectedly, national identification was a not a significant predictor of voting behaviour. In conclusion, the present research suggests that the extent to which citizens identify and feel represented by the government should be considered on par with populist attitudes in understanding support for populist parties. Perceiving that the government does not represent everyday people may be sufficient to abandon support for mainstream (non-populist) political parties.

show abstract

The social psychological processes of ‘procedural justice’: Concepts, critiques and opportunities

Cited by 56 publications

References 44 publications

Social Identification and Collective Action Participation in the Internet Age: A Meta-Analysis

Social Identification and Collective Action Participation in the Internet Age: A Meta-Analysis

Authority fairness as contingent on intergroup attitudes: Review and expansion of relational models of procedural justice

Power to the people: Disidentification with the government and the support for populism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About