his.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Vermunt, Riël
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 14) Show all publications
Vermunt, R., Kazemi, A. & Törnblom, K. (2012). The Salience of Outcome and Procedure in Giving and Receiving Universalistic and Particularistic Resources. In: Kjell Törnblom, Ali Kazemi (Ed.), Handbook of social resource theory: theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications (pp. 397-405). New York: Springer
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Salience of Outcome and Procedure in Giving and Receiving Universalistic and Particularistic Resources
2012 (English)In: Handbook of social resource theory: theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications / [ed] Kjell Törnblom, Ali Kazemi, New York: Springer, 2012, p. 397-405Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

As Riël Vermunt, Ali Kazemi, and Kjell Törnblom point out in this chapter, resource allocations may be judged on the basis of the resulting final outcome and/or the procedures applied to arrive at the outcome. The focus of this chapter is on how attention to the outcome or procedure is affected by the nature of the allocated resource (universalistic versus particularistic) and the direction of allocation (when P is a provider versus a recipient). Results from a cross-national survey study involving respondents from Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the USA showed that procedure was perceived as more focal in the allocation of universalistic as compared to particularistic resources. No differences were observed with regard to the salience of outcome. Interestingly, this held only true for resource providers; for resource recipients, this pattern was reversed. These and other findings suggest that the meaning of resource classes (in this study money and love) differ for providers and recipients in their judgments of allocation events. The authors conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for SRT and for future research.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
New York: Springer, 2012
Series
Critical issues in social justice, ISSN 1572-1906
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Humanities and Social sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-7198 (URN)10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_25 (DOI)978-1-4614-4174-8 (ISBN)978-1-4614-4175-5 (ISBN)
Available from: 2013-02-11 Created: 2013-02-11 Last updated: 2017-11-27Bibliographically approved
Ståhl, T., Vermunt, R. & Ellemers, N. (2008). For love or money?: How activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decision-making procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 80-94
Open this publication in new window or tab >>For love or money?: How activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decision-making procedures
2008 (English)In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, ISSN 0022-1031, E-ISSN 1096-0465, Vol. 44, no 1, p. 80-94Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

We investigate how the direct activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decisions made by an authority. It is demonstrated that when instrumental concerns are experimentally induced, people's evaluations of the authority (Studies I and 2) as well as their intentions to protest (Study 3) are more strongly affected by how the procedures used by the authority affect anticipated outcomes (i.e., whether procedures are favorably or unfavorably inaccurate) than when relational concerns are activated. By contrast, authority evaluations (Study 2) and protest intentions (Study 3) are more strongly affected by whether procedures used are fair (accurate) or unfair (inaccurate) when relational (versus instrumental) concerns are activated. These findings extend previous research where relational versus instrumental concerns were inferred, but not directly examined, to explain differences in responses to authorities' decisions. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords
procedural fairness, outcome favorability, procedure favorability, relational concerns, instrumental concerns, goal activation
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Humanities and Social sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-6871 (URN)10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.004 (DOI)000253282100007 ()2-s2.0-36448967106 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2012-11-30 Created: 2012-11-30 Last updated: 2017-11-27Bibliographically approved
Ståhl, T., Vermunt, R. & Ellemers, N. (2008). Reactions to outgroup authorities' decisions: The role of expected bias, procedural fairness and outcome favorability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 281-299
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Reactions to outgroup authorities' decisions: The role of expected bias, procedural fairness and outcome favorability
2008 (English)In: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, ISSN 1368-4302, E-ISSN 1461-7188, Vol. 11, no 3, p. 281-299Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

It is argued here that expectations of bias (vs. no bias) play a key role in explaining reactions to decisions made by outgroup authorities. Two experiments demonstrate that decision acceptance (Experiment 1) and intentions to protest against an outgroup authority's decisions (Experiment 2) are affected by procedural fairness when the authority has a reputation of being unbiased, but not when the authority's reputation suggests bias. By contrast, some evidence is also found suggesting that reactions to an outgroup authority's decisions are affected by the favorability of the outcome when the authority has a reputation of being biased, but not when the authority has a reputation of being unbiased. Mediation analyses indicate that two different processes account for these effects.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2008
Keywords
authority reputation, expected bias, intergroup perception, outcome favorability, procedural justice
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Humanities and Social sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-6866 (URN)10.1177/1368430208090643 (DOI)000257866700002 ()2-s2.0-45449091986 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2012-11-29 Created: 2012-11-29 Last updated: 2017-11-27Bibliographically approved
Törnblom, K. & Vermunt, R. (Eds.). (2007). Distributive and procedural justice: research and social applications. Aldershot: Ashgate
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Distributive and procedural justice: research and social applications
2007 (English)Collection (editor) (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. p. 275
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1986 (URN)978-0-7546-4766-9 (ISBN)
Available from: 2008-04-18 Created: 2008-04-18 Last updated: 2017-11-27Bibliographically approved
Vermunt, R., Peeters, Y. & Berggren, K. (2007). How fair treatment affects saliva cortisol release in stressed low and high type-A behavior individuals. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 547-555
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How fair treatment affects saliva cortisol release in stressed low and high type-A behavior individuals
2007 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0036-5564, E-ISSN 1467-9450, Vol. 48, no 6, p. 547-555Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The effects of fair treatment on saliva cortisol release of low and high Type-A behavior participants in high or low stress conditions are studied. Based on the Injustice Stress Theory (Vermunt & Steensma, 2001), predictions were made about fair treatment as a stress reducing factor. The results support the expected effect of fair treatment in that high type-A behavior participants in the low stress conditions had lower saliva cortisol levels after fair treatment while this effect was absent in the neutral condition, while low type-A behavior participants showed lower saliva cortisol release in the high stress conditions after fair treatment while this effect was absent in the neutral condition. Moreover, saliva cortisol scores are correlated positively with negative affect scores and negatively with positive affect scores. The discussion focuses on theoretical implications and suggestions for future research.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2007
Keywords
stress, procedural fairness, saliva cortisol, behavior type
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-6889 (URN)10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00593.x (DOI)000251206800012 ()18028077 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-36249031464 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2012-12-07 Created: 2012-12-07 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved
Törnblom, K., Jasso, G. & Vermunt, R. (2007). Theoretical Integration and Unification: A Focus on Justice. Social Justice Research, 20(3), 263-269
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Theoretical Integration and Unification: A Focus on Justice
2007 (English)In: Social Justice Research, ISSN 0885-7466, E-ISSN 1573-6725, Vol. 20, no 3, p. 263-269Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A commonly shared goal among scientists is to reach the ‘holy grail’ of theoretical integration or unification. We list several examples of such attempts within sociology and psychology in general and, more specifically, within the subarea of social justice. A distinction is made between the seemingly interchangeable terms integration and unification. We note the scarcity of work concerned with untangling the meaning of theoretical integration, with differentiating among forms of integration, and with mapping the variety of ways in which integration might be accomplished. The five articles published in this issue of Social Justice Research, and here briefly reviewed, address these and related questions and/or exemplify theoretical integration with a focus on justice.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2007
Keywords
Theoretical integration, Theoretical unification, Social justice
National Category
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-2450 (URN)10.1007/s11211-007-0044-x (DOI)2-s2.0-36549056631 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-12-10 Created: 2008-12-10 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
Törnblom, K. Y. & Vermunt, R. (2007). Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, and Social Resource Theories. Social Justice Research, 20(3), 312-335
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, and Social Resource Theories
2007 (English)In: Social Justice Research, ISSN 0885-7466, E-ISSN 1573-6725, Vol. 20, no 3, p. 312-335Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The aim of this paper is to formulate new and more precise predictions regarding behavioral reactions to distributive and procedural injustice via insights from resource theory. The three theories share focus on discrepancies between actual and ideal states of existence as well as on psychological and behavioral reactions to discrepancy. But they also differ from each other in their conceptualizations and theorizing about these matters. Equity theory conceptualizes discrepancy as a perceived mismatch between inputs and outcomes; multiprinciple distributive justice and procedural justice theories view discrepancy as a mismatch between expected and applied distribution and procedural rules, respectively. Resulting feelings of inequity/injustice may trigger attempts to restore justice. Within the framework of resource theory, discrepancy concerns an inappropriate match between the nature of the provided and received resources. This leads to frustration which, in turn, may trigger attempts at retaliation. Limitations of the theories are discussed, with particular focus on their inability to match specific discrepancies with appropriate behavioral reactions. Behavioral predictions are based upon established congruence between behavioral reactions and violated procedural rules as well as type of inequity, as determined via their respective resource isomorphism. Limitations of the present integration attempt are discussed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2007
Keywords
Theoretical integration, Isomorphism, Congruence, Equity theory, Distributive justice, Procedural justice, Resource theory, Discrepancy
National Category
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-2451 (URN)10.1007/s11211-007-0054-8 (DOI)2-s2.0-36649014334 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-12-10 Created: 2008-12-10 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
Ståhl, T., Vermunt, R. & Ellemers, N. (2006). Friend or foe?: Ingroup identification moderates reactions to outgroup members allocation behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(6), 877-885
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Friend or foe?: Ingroup identification moderates reactions to outgroup members allocation behavior
2006 (English)In: European Journal of Social Psychology, ISSN 0046-2772, E-ISSN 1099-0992, Vol. 36, no 6, p. 877-885Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In the present article we build on previous work suggesting that people react more strongly to the favorability of outgroup authority allocations than ingroup authority allocations. Based on theorizing and research on intergroup perception and self-categorization, we refine this argument by suggesting that responses to outgroup authorities depend on people's level of ingroup identification. We present data from an experiment showing that the favorability of treatment by an outgroup member primarily influences decision acceptance among high (vs. low) ingroup identifiers. In line with theory and research based on the relational model of authority, findings of the present study also suggest that ingroup identification has a reversed effect on acceptance of an ingroup authority's decisions. Specifically, the favorability of treatment by an ingroup member primarily influences decision acceptance among low (vs. high) ingroup identifiers.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2006
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1981 (URN)10.1002/ejsp.327 (DOI)000242223100006 ()2-s2.0-33751072649 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-04-18 Created: 2008-04-18 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved
Miedeman, J., van den Bos, K. & Vermunt, R. (2006). The influence of self-threats on fairness judgments and affective measures. Social Justice Research, 19(2), 228-253
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The influence of self-threats on fairness judgments and affective measures
2006 (English)In: Social Justice Research, ISSN 0885-7466, E-ISSN 1573-6725, Vol. 19, no 2, p. 228-253Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper focuses on the question of why fairness matters to people. Extending on terror and uncertainty management theories and the literature on the self, it is proposed here that fairness can be a means of self-defense. Thinking of a situation that is threatening to the self therefore should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of two experiments support this line of reasoning: Asking participants to think about things that are threatening to themselves led to stronger reactions to manipulations of both procedural and distributive fairness. In the discussion it is argued that these findings suggest that fairness especially matters to people when they are trying to deal with threats to their selves.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2006
Keywords
self, fairness, fairness judgments, affective reactions
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1982 (URN)10.1007/s11211-006-0007-7 (DOI)2-s2.0-33747887838 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-04-18 Created: 2008-04-18 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved
Vermunt, R. & Steensma, H. (2005). How Can Justice Be Used to Manage Stress in Organizations?. In: Jerald Greenberg, Jason A. Colquitt (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Justice: (pp. 383-410). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How Can Justice Be Used to Manage Stress in Organizations?
2005 (English)In: Handbook of Organizational Justice / [ed] Jerald Greenberg, Jason A. Colquitt, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005, p. 383-410Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1744 (URN)0-8058-4203-9 (ISBN)
Available from: 2007-08-27 Created: 2007-08-27 Last updated: 2018-01-31Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications