Skip to main content

Unconditional respect for persons: A social psychological analysis

Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) volume 38, pages 451–464 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

Zusammenfassung

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  • Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Causes and consequences of delegitimization: Models of conflict and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 909–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, S. (2006). The role of unconditional respect for persons and emotion in moral judgment. MSc Thesis, University of Oxford.

  • Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1335–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, R. S. (2003). Respect. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1983). In defense of equality. Social Philosophy and Policy, 1, 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1987). What is equality? Part 3: The place of liberty. Iowa Law Review, 73, 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. (2002). Dignity and violence. Frederic William Atherton Lecture, Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanisation: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kant, I. (1797/1996). Metaphysik der Sitten, translated as Metaphysics of morals, by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy (2nd Edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laham, S. M., Hewstone, M., & Lalljee, M. (2007). Unconditional respect in an intergroup context. Unpublished manuscript.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, L. (2006). Worrying for a living? Monitor on Psychology, 37, 74–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteith, M. J., & Walters, G. L. (1998). Egalitarianism, moral obligation and prejudice-related personal standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 186–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues 46(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pervin, L A., Cervone, D. & John, O. P. (2005). Personality theory and research. New Jersey: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York, NY, US, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • White, S. (1991). ’Dignity, Self-Ownership and the Redistributive State’. M.Phil. thesis, Oxford University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK, OX1 3UD

    Mansur Lalljee

  2. Department of Psychology, School of Behavioural Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    Simon M. Laham

  3. Legal Services Research Centre, 85 Grays Inn Rd., London, UK, WC1X 8TX

    Tania Tam

Authors
  1. Mansur Lalljee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon M. Laham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tania Tam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Dr. Mansur Lalljee is a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College Oxford. He moved from India to Oxford to study psychology and continued there as a member of the faculty. Besides his main focus on respect, his other research interests include attitudes, explanations, communication and cultural and political psychology.

Dr. Simon Laham completed his undergraduate work and doctorate at the University of New South Wales, before moving to a post-doctoral position at Oxford University to work on respect. He is now a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Melbourne. His main current interests include cultural and political psychology.

Dr. Tania Tam is a social statistician at the Legal Services Research Centre, London. She has degrees in German and in Psychology from the University of California at Berkeley and a doctorate from the University of Oxford. Her research interests have focussed on intergroup conflict, including issues of respect, forgiveness and trust; and on the effects of communication between grandparents and grandchildren on ageism.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lalljee, M., Laham, S.M. & Tam, T. Unconditional respect for persons: A social psychological analysis. Gruppendynamik 38, 451–464 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-007-0037-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-007-0037-0

Keywords

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

Schlüsselwörter

  • bedingungsloser Respekt
  • Neigung zur Sozialen Dominanz
  • rechtextreme Autoritätsneigung
  • Empathie
  • Perspektivübernahme
  • Handlungstendenzen