Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Respectful Inter-Group Interactions: A Method for Revising Group Attachment?

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated whether respectful treatment shaped participants’ perceptions of procedural justice during interactions with out-group authorities, and whether the effects of respectful treatment would extend to participants’ attachment to their in-group and to the authority’s social group. We hypothesised that the nature of the relationship between the out-group and a participant’s social group (diametrically opposed vs. not opposed to one another) would moderate the effect of respect on participants’ procedural justice judgements, attachment to the in-group, and attachment to the out-group. Participants (n = 186) read a short, fictitious news story describing an interaction between a fellow in-group member (the subordinate) and an authority. As predicted, respectful treatment increased perceptions of procedural justice and also led participants to feel more attached to the authority’s social group. Contrary to expectation, participants’ attachment to their in-group was not affected by treatment, but instead by authority group membership: interactions with an authority from a social group diametrically opposed to the participant’s social group led participants to become significantly more attached to their in-group, regardless of the authority’s behaviour (respectful vs. disrespectful) in the interaction. Results are discussed in terms of practical strategies for authorities to effectively manage interactions with out-group subordinates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While the 19 % failure rate for authority group membership appears high, participants failed this manipulation check at equal rates across the three conditions, the failure rate is similar to other online studies (e.g. Sivasubramaniam, Klettke, Clough, & Oleyar, 2015), and all participants who failed the manipulation check were excluded from the final sample, preserving the integrity of the reported results.

References

  • Ashmore, R. D., Jussim, L., & Wilder, D. (2001). Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldassarri, D., & Grossman, G. (2013). The effect of group attachment and social position on prosocial behaviour: Evidence from lab-in-the-field experiments. Social Structure and Prosocial behaviour, 8, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62(8), 728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 984–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collisson, B., & Howell, J. L. (2014). The liking-similarity effect: Perceptions of similarity as a function of liking. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(5), 384–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing: A Journal of Policing and Practice, 4, 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Kattan, A. (2007). The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients. Law and Human Behavior, 31(6), 573–610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., & Stroessner, S. J. (2011). The multi-value basis of procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical. Psychological Record, 43(3), 395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In Handbook of social psychology.

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Earley, P. C. (1992). Procedural justice and culture. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, C. P. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Lissak, R. E., & Conlon, A. E. (1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 338–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, P., & Moody, J. (2003). Structure and sentiment: Explaining emotional attachment to group. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment (pp. 155–184). Norman, OK: The University Book Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivasubramaniam, D., Klettke, B., Clough, J., Schuller, R., & Oleyar, K. (2015). Jurors’ consideration of inadmissible evidence: A motivational explanation. Journal of Judicial Administration, 24, 154–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., Walker, L., LaTour, S., & Houlden, P. (1974). Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review, 26, 1271–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioural engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group-engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218 - H24, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia

    Laura Davies & Diane Sivasubramaniam

Authors
  1. Laura Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diane Sivasubramaniam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane Sivasubramaniam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davies, L., Sivasubramaniam, D. Respectful Inter-Group Interactions: A Method for Revising Group Attachment?. Soc Just Res 29, 288–309 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0268-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0268-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation