Högskolan i Skövde

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.

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.

The present thesis focuses on the causal role of the people’s relationship to the authority in reactions to allocation decisions. A series of experiments investigating the effects of the authority’s group membership on reactions to allocation decisions are reported. In addition, psychological processes that may contribute to differences in responses to ingroup versus outgroup authorities’ decisions are examined. Because resource allocations across group boundaries may be particularly challenging for authorities, and because the psychological processes guiding reactions to outgroup authorities’ decisions have received very little attention, a primary aim is to examine the psychology of reactions to outgroup authorities’ decisions. Results demonstrate that people react more strongly to the favourability of procedures and outcomes when the authority is from an outgroup (vs. ingroup). By contrast, people generally react more strongly to the fairness of procedures when the authority is from an ingroup (vs. outgroup). Notably, direct activation of relational (ingroup) versus instrumental (outgroup) concerns produces the same response patterns as manipulating the authority’s group membership. Results further suggest that responses to outgroup authorities’ decisions in part can be explained by expectations that the authority is biased of members of his/her own group

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.

Theorizing on procedural justice has assumed that people's reactions to outgroup authorities are to a large extent based on instrumental concerns. Therefore, attention is primarily directed to outcomes rather than procedures in encounters with outgroup authorities. In the current article we propose that in order for people dealing with outgroup authorities to be strongly affected by procedural fairness, the available outcome information should be ambiguous. Furthermore, we argue that people confronted with an outgroup authority react particularly negatively to unfair procedures that give them negative outcome expectancies. These patterns are not expected in encounters with ingroup authorities. Two experiments support our line of reasoning. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the integration of theoretical perspectives on procedural justice.