Unconditional respect for persons: A social psychological analysis

  • Mansur Lalljee
  • Simon M. Laham
  • Tania Tam
Englischsprachige Reihe Respect: Perspectives on the phenomenon in organisations and society/Respekt: Perspektiven auf das Phänomen in Organisationen und Gesellschaft


It has been suggested that unconditional respect for persons, i.e. respect that is due to everyone simply as a function of their being persons, is the most fundamental kind of respect. Showing unconditional respect towards someone involves recognizing their integrity as a person and their status as an autonomous rational actor. This idea is a cornerstone of much moral, social and political theory. While the idea implicitly underlies some contemporary psychological work on respect, for the most part this fundamental moral orientation has been neglected in psychology. The concept needs clear explication and measurement if its explanatory and predictive value is to be fully realised. This paper will explore the concept of unconditional respect, describe a scale for measuring individual differences in this attitude, and then go on to position unconditional respect, both conceptually and empirically, amongst other relevant social psychological constructs such as Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Empathy and Perspective-taking. We then provide some evidence on, as well as speculation about, the role of unconditional respect in interpersonal and intergroup relations.


unconditional respect Social Dominance Orientation Right-wing Authoritarianism empathy perspective-taking action tendencies 


Bedingungsloser Respekt für Personen: Eine sozialpsychologische Analyse

Es wurde vorgeschlagen, bedingungslosen Respekt für Personen, also Respekt, der gezollt wird, einfach weil der/die Andere ein Mensch ist, als die fundamentalste Form des Respekts zu sehen. Jemanden bedingungslos zu respektieren beinhaltet Andere in ihrer Integrität als Personen und in ihrer Autonomie as rationale Akteure zu anzuerkennen. Diese Grundidee stellt das Kernelement unzähliger moralischer, sozialer und politischer Theorien dar. Während diese Idee implizit auch einigen derzeitigen psychologischen Arbeiten zu Respekt zugrunde liegt, so wird generell in der Psychologie diese Art des moralischen Respekts eher ausgespart. Das Konzept braucht jedoch klare Explikation und Messbarkeit, wenn seine erklärende und vorhersagende Funktion voll ausgeschöpft werden soll. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird daher das Konzept des bedingungslosen Respekts exploriert, eine Skale zur Messung individueller Differenzen in dieser Einstellung beschrieben, sowie eine konzeptionelle wie auch empirische Positionsbestimmung vorgenommen, in der das Konzept im Verhältnis zu anderen relevanten sozialpsychologischen Konzepten, wie etwa Neigung zur Sozialen Dominanz, rechtextreme Autoritätsneigung, Empathie und Perspektivübernahme, diskutiert wird. Im Anschluss zeigen und spekulieren wir über die Rolle von unkonditionalen Respekt in interpersonalen und Intergruppen-Beziehungen.


bedingungsloser Respekt Neigung zur Sozialen Dominanz rechtextreme Autoritätsneigung Empathie Perspektivübernahme Handlungstendenzen 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Causes and consequences of delegitimization: Models of conflict and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 909–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Branscombe, N., Spears, R, Ellemers, N. & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chopra, S. (2006). The role of unconditional respect for persons and emotion in moral judgment. MSc Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1335–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillon, R. S. (2003). Respect. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  15. Duriez, B., & Hiel, A. V. (2002). The march of modern facscism: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dworkin, R. (1983). In defense of equality. Social Philosophy and Policy, 1, 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dworkin, R. (1987). What is equality? Part 3: The place of liberty. Iowa Law Review, 73, 1–54.Google Scholar
  18. Ekehammer, B., & Akrami, N. (2003). The relation between personality and prejudice: A variable-versus a person-centred approach. European Journal of Personality, 17, 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., & Spears, R. (2004). Sources of respect: The effects of being liked by ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Glover, J. (2002). Dignity and violence. Frederic William Atherton Lecture, Harvard.Google Scholar
  23. Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). SanDiego, CA. Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanisation: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Haslam S.A., McGarty, C. & Turner, J.C. (1996). Salient group memberships and persuasion: The role of social identity in the validation of beliefs. In J. L. Nye and A. M. Brewer, (Eds.) What’s social about social cognition? London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.) Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  31. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kant, I. (1785/1997). Grundlegung zu Metaphysik der Sitten, translated as Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kant, I. (1797/1996). Metaphysik der Sitten, translated as Metaphysics of morals, by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy (2nd Edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Laham, S. M., Hewstone, M., & Lalljee, M. (2007). Unconditional respect in an intergroup context. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  36. Lalljee, M., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., & Lee, J. (2007). Unconditional respect for persons and its relationship with intergroup attitudes and action tendencies. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  37. Mackie, D.M., Worth, L.T. & Ascuncion, A.G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812–822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Meyers, L. (2006). Worrying for a living? Monitor on Psychology, 37, 74–75.Google Scholar
  40. Monteith, M. J., & Walters, G. L. (1998). Egalitarianism, moral obligation and prejudice-related personal standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues 46(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pervin, L A., Cervone, D. & John, O. P. (2005). Personality theory and research. New Jersey: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 31, pp. 191–263). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social Dominance Orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating theory, research, and applications. In K. R. Scherer, A., Schorr, & T. Johnstone, Tom (Eds), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. (pp. 68–91). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simon, B. & Stürmer, S. (2003). Respect for group members: Intragroup determinants of collective identification and group-serving behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 183–193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 146–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York, NY, US, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., Voci, A., & Cairns, E., (2006). Positive emotions in intergroup conflict? The mediational role of intergroup emotions and empathy in contact between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  55. Tyler, T. R. & Smith, H. J. (1999). Justice, social identity, and group processes. In T.R. Tyler, R.M. Kramer, & O.P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp 223–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. White, S. (1991). ’Dignity, Self-Ownership and the Redistributive State’. M.Phil. thesis, Oxford University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Wiesbaden 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mansur Lalljee
    • 1
  • Simon M. Laham
    • 2
  • Tania Tam
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, School of Behavioural ScienceUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Legal Services Research CentreLondonUK

Personalised recommendations