122x Filetype PDF File size 0.12 MB Source: www.almendron.com
Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2003 by 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, 349–361 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior Tom R. Tyler Department of Psychology New York University Steven L. Blader Stern School of Business New York University The group engagement model expands the insights of the group-value model of pro- cedural justice and the relational model of authority into an explanation for why procedural justice shapes cooperation in groups, organizations, and societies. It hy- pothesizes that procedures are important because they shape people’s social iden- tity within groups, and social identity in turn influences attitudes, values, and be- haviors. The model further hypothesizes that resource judgments exercise their influence indirectly by shaping social identity. This social identity mediation hy- pothesis explains why people focus on procedural justice, and in particular on pro- cedural elements related to the quality of their interpersonal treatment, because those elements carry the most social identity-relevant information. In this article, wereview several key insights of the group engagement model, relate these insights to important trends in psychological research on justice, and discuss implications of the model for the future of procedural justice research. The original goal of social justice research was In this article, we put forth a theoretical model to demonstrate the power of justice judgments to thatdevelopsfromthefindingsofearliermodelsand shape people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions (Ty- shifts in the focus of justice research. Specifically, ler, 2000; Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997; wepresenttheoryandresearchonourgroupengage- Tyler & Smith, 1997). Justice studies have, in fact, mentmodel,whichdrawstogethertheinsightsofthe continually provided strong and consistent demon- group-valuemodelofproceduraljustice(Lind&Ty- strations of support for this basic justice hypothe- ler, 1988) and the relational model of authority (Ty- sis. Justice has an impact; it is substantial in magni- ler & Lind, 1992) and extends them to understand tude; it is consistently found across a wide variety the antecedents of cooperation in groups (Tyler & of group and organizational contexts; and it is dis- Blader, 2000). The argument underlying the group tinct from judgments of self-interest or per- engagement model is that people’s focus on proce- - sonal/group gain. This conclusion suggests that in - dural justice sheds light on their motivations for en formation about justice is central to people’s - gaging in groups, and thus the model explicitly pos evaluations of social situations (Tyler et al., 1997; its what those motivations are. In so doing, it vandenBos&Lind,2002). contributes to our understanding of what people are Justice research has evolved a great deal in the seekingwhentheyinvolvethemselvesingroupsand process of developing these insights about the role the importance of justice in social settings. The - of justice in social contexts. Numerous models re model also suggests some innovative directions for lated to the justice phenomenahavebeenproposed. future research. Someofthesecontinuetoshapethefaceofjustice Because it is important to understand the past to - researchtoday,whereasothershavefallenintorela evaluate new theories and models, we preview our - tiveobscuritybytheirinabilitytowithstandempiri presentation of the model by a discussion of major cal scrutiny. All have contributed to the history of shifts in justice research and how they are addressed justice research. by the group engagement model. We also explicitly distinguish the group engagement model from earlier Requests for reprints should be sent to Tom R. Tyler, Depart- models that contributed to its development, and then ment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, provide a more in-depth treatment of the model and Room 550, New York, NY 10003. E-mail: tom.tyler@nyu.edu the propositions it raises for future research. 349 TYLER AND BLADER The History of Social Justice Research Huo,1997;Tyler&Smith,1997).Thisdoesnotmean, of course, that people no longer study distributive jus- tice, but that there is a particularly strong focus in cur The Shift From Distributive to - Procedural Justice rentresearchonissuesofproceduraljustice.Thisfocus Early research on justice focused on the argument is embodiedinthegroupengagementmodelbythekey that people’s feelings and behaviors in social interac- role it accords to procedural justice. tions flow from their assessments of the fairness of their outcomes when dealing with others (distributive The Focus on Treatment Issues in fairness). This hypothesis was widely supported. In Definitions of Procedural Justice particular, experimental studies showed that people A second important shift in justice research has were most satisfied when outcomes were distributed been a change in how procedural justice is defined. fairly (Walster, Walster,&Berscheid,1978).Whatwas Earlyworkonproceduraljusticewasguidedbythein- moststriking and provocative about these results were fluential research program of Thibaut and Walker the adverse reactions by those who received more than (1975). Thibaut and Walker centered their procedural theyfelt they deserved; people did not react well to be- justice studies on procedures as mechanisms for mak- ing‘over-benefited.’Thisfindingsuggestedthatpeople ing decisions about the allocation of outcomes. In par- will give up resources and accept less when they be- ticular, they focused on formal procedures that related lieve doing so is fair. to decision-making processes in legal settings. So Despite the impressive findings of early studies of Thibaut and Walker linked their discussions of proce- distributivejustice,thefocusofattentionamongjustice dures primarily to issues of decision making, and in researchershasincreasinglyshiftedawayfromstudying particulartoissuesofdecisionmakingaboutallocation onlydistributive justice to a focus on people’s distribu- decisions. Because their procedural models were tive and procedural justice concerns. A number of fac- rooted in an era in which distributive justice domi- torshavedriventhisshift.First,researchshowsthatdis- nated, their focus was natural. This context also influ- tributive justice judgments are often biased (e.g., enced their theory development, because they linked Messick&Sentis,1985;Ross&Sicoly,1979;Thomp- people’s desire for fair procedures to their desire to son&Loewenstein,1992).Thislimitstheutilityofdis- achieve equitable outcomes. They proposed that peo- tributivejusticeasaconstruct,becausepeoplewilloften ple value procedural justice (operationalized in their see themselves as deserving more favorable outcomes research as voice or process control) because it facili- than others see them as deserving. As a result, people tates decision makers’ ability to make equitable judg- frequentlycannotbegivenwhattheyfeeltheydeserve, ments.Inotherwords,proceduresarevaluedinsofaras and distributive justice has not proven as useful in re- theyaffecttheoutcomesthatareassociatedwiththem. solving group conflicts as was initially hoped. This focus on decision making in allocation con- A greater focus on procedural justice issues was texts is no longer true of procedural justice research. also driven by later studies that looked simultaneously Researchers have increasingly moved their attention at the impact of distributive and procedural justice away from an exclusive focus on the decision-making judgments and found a predominant influence of pro- function of procedures to include more attention to the cedural justice on people’s reactions in groups (Alex- interpersonal aspects of procedures. Those interper- ander&Ruderman,1987;Tyler&Caine,1981).These sonal aspects of procedures arise because procedures studies, conducted in settings in which people had in- are settings within which people are involved in a so- formation about both distributive and procedural jus- cialinteractionwithoneanother.Thisistrueregardless tice, found that procedural justice judgments play the ofwhethertheprocedureinvolvesbargaining,amarket major role in shaping people’s reactions to their per- exchange, team interaction among equals, or a third sonal experiences. More recent research echoes these - party procedure with a decision maker, such as media findings about the relative impact of procedural and tion or a trial. distributive justice concerns (Tyler & Blader, 2000). In In social interactions there is considerable variation addition, peoplewhowereaskedtotalkaboutpersonal in the manner in which people treat one another. They experiences of injustice were found to talk primarily canactpolitely, rudely, respectfully, with hostility, and about procedural issues, in particular about being soon.Theseaspectsoftheinterpersonalexperienceof treated with a lack of respect when dealing with others aprocedure—whichoccurinthecontextofaninterac- (Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985; - tion whose overt purpose is to make a decision to allo Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990). cate resources or resolve a conflict—may also influ- Justice research has followed the path outlined by ence those who are involved. this evidence because it finds that the primary impact Anexampleofthisshiftfromanexclusivefocuson on people comes from their judgments about the fair- decisionmakingtoafocusthatincludesattentiontothe ness of procedures (see Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & interpersonal quality of the interaction can be found in 350 JUSTICE, IDENTITY, AND BEHAVIOR the literature on voice or process control. In the early findingsaboutwhatimpactsthepeopletheystudy.This workofThibautandWalker(1975),theopportunityto has led them to increasingly turn their research toward presentevidencewaslinkedtothedesiretoinfluencethe exploring interpersonal or interactional aspects of pro- decisions made by third party decision makers. The cedures—which are reflected in judgments about the valueoftheopportunitytospeakwasdirectlyrelatedto quality of one’s treatment by others. their estimate of how muchinfluencetheyhadoverthe Thegroupengagementmodelnotonlyincorporates decision maker. Consequently, in this research people this shift in the focus of how justice is defined—by in- corporating quality of treatment issues—but also pro werenotaskedaboutwhethertheyweretreatedpolitely - andwithdignity by the decision maker. vides a framework for understanding why this class of However,laterstudiesofvoicesuggestedthathaving procedural criteria has the impact that it does. the opportunity for “voice” had interpersonal or “value-expressive”worththatwasnotlinkedtoanyin Moving From Anger and Negative - fluence over the decisions made (Tyler, 1987). These Behaviors to Positive Attitudes–Values studies showed that people still rated a procedure to be and Cooperative Behaviors morefairiftheyhadvoice,eveniftheyknewthatwhat Earlyresearchonjusticewasrootedintheliterature theysaidhadlittleornoinfluenceonthedecisionsmade onrelative deprivation, a literature whose origins lie in (Tyler, Rasinski, & Spodick, 1985). This was true even efforts to understand and explain riots and rebellion whentheopportunityforvoicecameafterthedecision (Crosby, 1976; Gurr, 1970). This focus on negative at- wasalreadymade(Lind,Kanfer,&Earley,1990).These titudes and behaviors continued in later efforts to un- findings suggest that voice has value beyond its ability derstand distributive influences on pay dissatisfaction, to shape decision-making processes and outcomes. employeetheft, sabotage and turnover, and procedural Whatfactorsaredrivingtheinfluenceofvoice,even effects on resistace to third-party decisions (Tyler & whenitclearlycannotaffecttheeventualoutcomeorde- Smith, 1997). However, recent research on procedural cision?Ifanauthoritylistenstopeople’sarguments,we justice has increasinglyfocusedonmoreprosocialout- mighthypothesizethatpeoplethinkthattheauthorityis comes,suchashowtobuildtrust,encourageresponsi- conferringinterpersonalrespectonthatperson.Thisar- bility and obligation, generate intrinsic motivation and gument was supported by the finding that people only creativity, and stimulate voluntary cooperation with value such voice opportunities if they feel that the au- others (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Similarly, there has thority is “considering” their arguments (Tyler, 1987). been increasing attention to exploring when justice This suggests that people were focused on whether or motivations encourage people to provide resources to not they had their concerns and needs in the situation the disadvantaged (Montada, 1995). Interestingly, this treated respectfully by the decision maker, independ- shift is consistent withashiftthathasbeentakingplace entlyofwhetherornotthecourseofactiontheyrecom- within psychological research more generally (Snyder mendtoresolvethoseconcernswasadopted. & Lopez, 2002). Other research on people’s procedural justice con- This broadening of the focus of justice research is cerns directly measured people’s focus on the quality consistent with the group engagement argument that of their interpersonal treatment (“standing” or “status justice theories provide a basis for understanding peo- recognition”), and found that it had an effect that was ple’s generalrelationshiptogroups.Thatincludesboth distinct from their interest in the fairness of deci- people’s negative reactions to injustice and the ability sion-making judgments. Drawing on these findings, - the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992) ofjusticetomotivateengagementandcooperation.So explicitly included issues of interpersonal treatment ciety, after all, does not just want people not to riot or within the framework of procedural justice concerns. destroy. It also wants them to be happy, creative, and The relational model, therefore, directly recognized productive. the importance of interpersonal treatment. Subsequent studies confirm that issues of interpersonal treatment Models of the Psychology of Justice or standing independently shape procedural justice judgments (Tyler, 1988, 1994; Tyler & Huo, 2002). While continually supporting the basic importance Theseinterpersonalaspectsofprocedureshavebeen ofpeople’sjusticejudgments,theseshiftsinfocushave foundbyrecentstudiestobesopowerfulintheirimpact resultedinadramaticchangeinthecharacterofjustice that some researchers have argued that they might po- researchsincethe1960s.Infact,earlyjusticeresearch- tentially be treated as a separate type of “interactional” ers mighthavetroublerecognizingmanyrecentjustice - justice (Bies & Moag, 1986; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Re studiesasbeingaboutjustice—atleastastheyoriginally gardlessofwhetherthequalityofthetreatmentthatpeo- understoodthatconstruct.Insteadofviewingjusticeas ple experience via procedures is actually considered a residingintherulesusedinthedistributionofresources distinct form of justice (see Blader & Tyler, 2003a, in a group, justice is more recently viewed as being 2003b), justice researchers have again followed their strongly linked to quality of treatment issues, such as 351 TYLER AND BLADER treating people with politeness and dignity in social in- of procedural justice when dealing with members of teractions.Itisalsofocusedonstimulatingcommitment their own groups (Tyler, 1999). The relational model andcooperation, rather than minimizing anger and de- predictsthatproceduraljusticewillinfluencereactions structive behaviors. to authorities, as has been subsequently found by stud- We argue that these changes—which were guided ies of legal, political, managerial, familial, and educa- by the empirical results of justice research—can best tional authorities (Tyler & Smith, 1997). It further pre - be understood by considering the psychological dy- dicts that relational concerns—in particular neutrality, namics underlying justice. That is, they can be ex- trustworthiness, and status recognition—will influ- plained by considering the psychological processes ence procedural justice judgments, an argument sup- that lead people to react to issues of justice or injustice ported by a number of studies (Tyler, 1989, 1994; Ty- whenthey are dealing with others. Much early justice ler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). research was focused on showing that justice matters, Howdoesthegroupengagementmodeldifferfrom that is, on demonstrating that people’s thoughts, feel- these earlier, empirically supported models? First, the ings, and behaviors are shaped by their justice judg- group engagement model is broader in its scope. The ments,suggestingthatinformationaboutjusticeiscen- objective of the model is to identify and examine the tral to people’s evaluationsofsocialsituations(Tyleret antecedents of attitudes, values, and cooperative be- al., 1997; van den Bos & Lind, 2002). However, to de- havior in groups. Hence, the group engagement model velop a deeper understanding of why these effects broadens the focus of justice studies and its predeces- emerge—andwhytheshiftsinresearchfocuswehave sormodelsofjusticebypositingageneralmodelofthe outlined have occurred—we need to pay attention to relationship between people and groups. In trying to the psychology underlying justice. understand the precursors of people’s engagement in Several models have been proposed to understand the their groups, it identifies and examines a much broader psychologyunderlyingproceduraljustice. We will be fo- set of variables—and dynamics between those vari- cusing here on a set of models that share an emphasis on ables—than earlier justice models. the relational implications of justice evaluations. These Second, several new ideas and hypotheses flow models represent a significant systematic research pro- from the group engagement model. It predicts that gramdesignedtounderstandthepsychologyofjustice.In identity judgments will be the primary factors shaping particular, we will be presenting our group engagement attitudes, values, and cooperative behaviors in groups. model, which integrates the insights of the earlier group Second, it predicts that resource judgments will most value (Lind & Tyler, 1988) and relational models (Tyler strongly influence attitudes, values, and discretionary &Lind,1992)andextendsthoseinsightsintoanexplana- cooperative behaviors in groups through their indirect tion for why procedural justice shapes cooperation in influence on identity judgments, rather than directly. groups, organizations, and societies. The relationship Third, it predicts that the primary antecedent of iden- amongthese three models is shown in Table 1. tity judgments will be judgments about the procedural The models differ first in their focus. The justice of the group. Fourth, it predicts that status judg- group-valuemodelfocusesontheantecedentsofjudg- mentsaboutprideandrespectwillshapeidentification ments of procedural justice. The relational model ex- withthegroup.Eachofthesenovelpredictionsiselab- plores the factors shaping reactions to authorities. The orated on in the next section. modelsalsodifferintheirpredictions.Thegroup-value modelpredicts that noninstrumental factors will influ- ence procedural justice judgments, a prediction con- The Group Engagement Model - firmed both by findings of noninstrumental voice ef fects (Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990; Tyler, 1987), and As noted, the key objective of the group engage- by demonstrations that people care more about issues - ment model is to understand what shapes the relation Table 1. Comparison of Models of Procedural Justice Model Focus of Concern Value Added by Model Group-value model Procedural justice judgments Noninstrumental factors influence judgments about procedural justice Relational model Authority relations, leadership Procedural justice shapes reactions to authorities Relational concerns (neutrality, trustworthiness, standing and status recognition) shape judgments about procedural justice Group engagement model Attitudes, values, and cooperative Identity judgments directly shape attitudes, values, and cooperative behavior behavior in groups Resource judgments influence attitudes values, and discretionary cooperative behavior primarily through their influence on identity judgments Procedural justice shapes identity judgments Pride and respect influence identification with the group 352
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.