P SY CH OL OG I C AL S CIE N CE
Research Article
The Other Side of Injustice
When Unfair Procedures Increase Group-Serving Behavior
Heather Barry and Tom R. Tyler
New York University
ABSTRACT—Greater
group identification and higher levels
of procedural justice typically work together to encourage
group members to engage in group-serving cooperative
behavior. However, when people who already identify with
a group receive information indicating that the group is
procedurally unjust, their motivation to engage in groupserving behavior may increase. This article reports two
studies in which college students’ identification with their
university was measured and information about the procedural justice of the university was manipulated. Study 1
used an explicit measure of group identification and a
deliberative measure of group-serving behavior. Study 2
used an implicit measure of group identification and both
deliberative and spontaneous measures of group-serving
behavior. The findings of both studies support the hypothesis that among people who are highly identified with a
group, learning about the group’s injustice leads to shortterm increases in group-serving behavior.
Procedural justice and group identification often work in tandem
to promote group-serving behavior. People help a procedurally
fair group because procedural justice of a group encourages
individuals to identify themselves with that group, and people
help a group in which their identity is intertwined because the
group’s success reflects well on the self (see De Cremer & Tyler,
2005). However, what happens when group identification and
procedural-justice information come in conflict? The studies
reported here address one such situation, in which people who
already identify with a group receive information suggesting that
the group is procedurally unjust. We hypothesized that among
people who are highly identified with a group, knowledge of the
group’s procedural injustice might promote group-serving behavior.
Why might this happen? Research has shown that group
members will allocate more resources to their group than to
Address correspondence to Heather Barry, New York University,
Department of Psychology, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New
York, NY 10003, e-mail: [email protected].
1026
themselves when the group especially needs help (Brann &
Foddy, 1987), particularly when there is no chance to change
groups (i.e., group membership is impermeable; Ellemers,
Wilke, & Van Knippenberg, 1993). In addition, people want
their groups to be procedurally fair, because being proud of a
group’s attributes allows group members to feel good about
themselves (Blader & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Blader, 2000). Thus,
evidence of group unfairness is a sign of shortcoming, indicating
that the group needs help. Given that identity-relevant shortcomings often serve as motivation for increased effort, at the
group level as well as the individual level (Ledgerwood, Liviatan, & Carnevale, 2007; Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1981), we
hypothesized that evidence of a group’s unfairness will motivate
helping behavior among people who are highly identified with
that group, because they have merged their sense of self with the
group.
How can people repair their group? Engaging in behavior that
helps other group members or helps the group as a whole is one
way to try to improve one’s group. This group-serving behavior
may make the group fairer, because members who have resources (time, skills) will transfer these resources to people in
need. Moreover, such behavior may also make the group better,
because its members will become generally better off. In either
case, engaging in group-serving behavior offers members a way
to invest extra effort in response to their group’s shortcoming.
The studies reported here were conducted in a sample of
university students for whom group membership is relatively
impermeable. These students have a history with their university,
have given money to it, often live in university housing, visit
university facilities frequently, and interact with fellow students,
professors, and administrative personnel on a daily basis. Group
membership is especially impermeable for those who strongly
identify themselves with the university community; those low in
identification can more easily remove their sense of self, if not
their physical selves, from the group. Thus, we measured participants’ group identification and presented them with information indicating that their university was either procedurally
fair or procedurally unfair. Subsequently, we offered participants
a chance to participate in group-serving behavior. We hypothesized that those who identified highly with the university would
Copyright r 2009 Association for Psychological Science
Volume 20—Number 8
Heather Barry and Tom R. Tyler
react to the procedural-justice information by performing more
(or expressing more interest in) group-serving behavior when the
group was unfair than when it was fair.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants
One hundred twenty-three New York University (NYU) undergraduates (92 female, 27 male, 4 not recorded; mean age 5
19.56 years, SD 5 1.25 years) participated in partial fulfillment
of a course requirement. Participants had attended the university for an average of 3.66 semesters (SD 5 1.86).
Materials and Procedure
Group Identification. Participants responded to six items (e.g.,
‘‘Being a member of the NYU community is very important to the
way you think of yourself as a person’’) modeled on previous
group-identification measures (e.g., Tyler & Blader, 2000). The
response scale ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly
disagree). Responses were summed to calculate an overall explicit-identification score (a 5 .78).
Procedural-Justice Manipulation. After completing the groupidentification measure, participants were told that they would
perform a reading comprehension task. The reading materials
were designed to look like an official NYU Web site explaining
NYU’s procedures for addressing problems and complaints
(‘‘grievance procedures’’). Participants were randomly assigned
to read one of two versions, which were identical except for three
bullet points. Participants in the justice condition read, ‘‘You
have the right to file a grievance,’’ ‘‘You have the right to a written
decision,’’ and ‘‘You have the right to appeal.’’ Those in the injustice condition read, ‘‘Some people may have the right to file a
grievance,’’ ‘‘Some people have the right to a written decision . . .
the appeal officer will decide who receives a written decision,’’
and ‘‘People sometimes have the right to appeal.’’ After reading
the materials, participants were asked to give their opinion
about how fair or unfair the procedures were, using a response
scale from 1 (they are very unfair) to 7 (they are very fair).
Deliberative Group-Serving Behavior. After participants had
completed other materials irrelevant to this study, the experimenter explained that the study was over, but said,
We are running this study with the Office of Community Service at
NYU, which is interested in why students volunteer. In addition to
conducting this study, we’d like to give you a brochure about a new
program they have and ask you to read through it. It’s up to you if
you want to write anything on it.
Participants were told that after they were done with the brochure, they should drop it in a lockbox down the hall and call
back the experimenter.
Volume 20—Number 8
The brochure, which was printed on glossy paper and designed to look as if it came from an actual NYU office, presented
a new program called ‘‘NYU Cares.’’ There were spaces for
participants to write their name and e-mail address or phone
number for future contact. The brochure listed 14 different
volunteer opportunities (ranging from tutoring NYU students to
working on Welcome Week events), and each one could be
marked definitely not, maybe, or definitely yes to indicate the
participant’s interest. A sum score (ranging from 0 to 28) was
created by assigning a score of 0 to options left blank or marked
definitely not, a score of 1 to options marked maybe, and a score
of 2 to options marked definitely yes. After dropping off the
brochure, participants were debriefed and probed for suspicion
about the procedural-justice manipulation.
Results
Data from 4 participants were missing because of computer
malfunction. Participants in the justice condition (M 5 5.26,
SD 5 1.63) found the grievance procedures to be significantly
more fair than those in the injustice condition (M 5 3.36, SD 5
1.45), t(117) 5 6.72, p < .001, prep 5 1.00. During debriefing,
13 participants (11%) indicated that they did not believe that
the procedural information they had read actually reflected the
way that NYU handled grievances; these suspicious participants
were excluded from subsequent analysis. The analyses we report
included 106 participants (55 in the justice condition, 51 in the
injustice condition).
Our measure of deliberative group-serving behavior was the
sum score from the NYU Cares brochure (M 5 7.87, SD 5 6.71;
31 participants did not record their name and contact information on the brochure and were given a score of 0). A regression analysis conducted on this score showed an interaction of
group identification and procedural-justice condition, b 5 .19,
t(102) 5 2.02, p 5 .05, prep 5 .88.1
The pattern of the interaction is illustrated in Figure 1. For
participants with high group identification (1 SD above the
mean), unfair procedures led to significantly more interest in
engaging in group-serving behavior than did fair procedures,
t(102) 5 2.25, p 5 .03, prep 5 .91. For participants with a low
level of group identification (1 SD below the mean), interest in
group-serving behavior did not differ by condition, t(102) 5
0.62, p 5 .54, prep 5 .47.
Discussion
As predicted, among people who strongly identified with their
group, procedural unfairness of the group led to more groupserving behavior than did procedural fairness of the group.
1
This dependent variable was not normally distributed. When we used a
generalized estimating equation with robust standard errors to correct for
nonnormality, the interaction of group identification and procedural-justice
condition remained significant, p < .05, prep > .88. Linear regression analyses
are presented here for ease of interpretation.
1027
Unfair Procedures Increase Group-Serving Behavior
12
Low Group Identification
High Group Identification
Group-Serving Behavior
10
8
6
4
2
0
Just
Unjust
Procedural-Justice Condition
Fig. 1. Results from Study 1: sum score from the ‘‘NYU Cares’’ brochure as a function of explicit group identification and procedural-justice
condition. Low and high identification are values 1 standard deviation
below and 1 standard deviation above the mean, respectively.
Under certain circumstances, then, learning that a group is
procedurally unfair can actually motivate people who belong to
that group to cooperate more, rather than less, with the group.
These findings are especially interesting given that our measures of group identification and group-serving behavior were
very similar to those that have been used in most previous
procedural-justice research, which has generally found that
identification and procedural justice are associated with increased group-serving behavior (e.g., Tyler & Blader, 2000).
One limitation of Study 1 was the measure of group-serving
behavior, which indexed only self-stated interest in performing
behavior to help the group. Although efforts were made to
present the NYU Cares brochure as being separate from the
study, and although participants returned the brochure to a
lockbox rather than to the experimenter, this measure may still
have been susceptible to self-presentation concerns, which
would not have translated into actual volunteering. We conducted Study 2 because we thought it was important to see
whether more spontaneous behavior would show the effects
observed in Study 1. Further, because about 10% of the participants in Study 1 were suspicious of the procedural-justice
manipulation, we made some changes in Study 2 to increase its
believability.
STUDY 2
Study 2 replicated Study 1, but focused on implicit, rather than
explicit, identification with the group. Further, Study 2 examined the factors shaping spontaneous group-serving behavior, in
addition to deliberative group-serving behavior.
1028
In examining cooperative behavior, previous proceduraljustice research has typically either measured perceived probabilities of engaging in particular cooperative acts in the future
or collected reports of group-serving actions over a past period of
time. Such measures capture deliberative, controlled behaviors
that are in line with one’s explicit attitudes (Fazio & Olson,
2003). But how do procedural justice and group identification
relate to spontaneous action, such as interrupting a conversation
or walking quickly when asked to run an errand? Research by
Bargh and his colleagues (e.g., Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996;
for a review, see Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001) suggests that such
behaviors are often automatic and performed without conscious
intent. According to the distinction made by Fazio and Olson
(2003), they may be better predicted by implicit rather than
explicit measures. Therefore, in Study 2, we used an implicit
approach to measuring group identification, to increase the
likelihood of identifying the psychological dynamics underlying
spontaneous helping. The use of an implicit measure also allowed us to test the robustness of the finding of Study 1.
We approached implicit group identification using the concept of self-other merging (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991).
Mental representations of self and a close other are described as
linked, or ‘‘overlapping,’’ in memory, and activating one representation facilitates activation of the other; the link is stronger
the closer the relationship. Identification with a group leads to
incorporation of the group into the self-concept (Smith, Coats, &
Walling, 1999; Smith & Henry, 1996; Tropp & Wright, 2001),
and evidence from several studies suggests that response times
can be used to gauge the extent to which people incorporate an
individual or group into their self-concept, a process that may
take place to some extent outside of conscious awareness.
The specific task we used to identify self-other merging is
based on the idea that if cognitive representations of self and
group overlap, it will be easier (hence, quicker) to respond to
questions relating to information that is congruent, rather than
incongruent, in the two representations. Thus, a participant is
asked whether a number of traits or attitudes are true or false of
him or her. If a trait is true, the participant should be quicker to
respond when it is also true of in-group members, and slower to
respond when it is not true of in-group members. On average,
there should be facilitation of response time for traits or attitudes
characterized by a self-group match relative to those characterized by a self-group mismatch. Studies have shown that such
facilitation is heightened if the respondent identifies strongly
with the group (Coats, Smith, Claypool, & Banner, 2000; Tropp
& Wright, 2001).
In addition to using this new measure of group identification,
Study 2 incorporated changes to the materials used to manipulate procedural justice in Study 1. In Study 2, we added
comments supposedly written by other students who had experienced the grievance procedures, to increase the believability
of the materials. We also used a more elaborate cover story to
address a potential alternative explanation of our previous
Volume 20—Number 8
Heather Barry and Tom R. Tyler
findings. Specifically, Study 1 participants might have perceived
the unfair grievance procedures as being imposed on their group
by outside forces. In that case, the effects of the manipulation
could be interpreted to mean that in the face of injustice from an
outside source (i.e., school administration), participants who
identified strongly with the group banded together and increased
their group-serving behavior. In Study 2, participants were told
that the grievance procedures had been designed by other NYU
students. This change ensured that participants would perceive
the injustice as arising from their group, and not as being imposed on their group by a small subgroup (i.e., the administration).
Method
Participants
One hundred thirty-three NYU undergraduates (102 female, 31
male; mean age 5 19.13 years, SD 5 1.12 years) participated in
partial fulfillment of a course requirement. On average, they had
completed 3.18 semesters at the university (SD 5 1.60).
Materials and Procedure
Group Identification. When they entered the lab, participants
completed an initial measure on paper, rating the extent to which
each of 90 traits generally characterized people in the NYU
community (Aron et al., 1991). The response scale ranged from 1
(extremely unlike) to 7 (extremely like). Following the procedure
of Smith and Henry (1996), we later dichotomized responses to
this questionnaire for purposes of analysis: 1–3 5 false, 5–7 5
true, 4 5 missing. After the procedural-justice manipulation
and manipulation check, the same traits were presented one at a
time on a computer, and participants indicated whether each
was true or not true of them personally. Response times were
recorded.
For each trait, response times more than 3 standard deviations
from the mean were excluded; remaining response times less
than 300 ms or greater than 5,000 ms were also excluded. We
calculated for each participant a mean response time for traits
falling in each of the four combinations of descriptiveness: true
of self and group, true of self but false of group, false of self and
group, false of self but true of group. We then formed an overall
implicit-identification score by subtracting the mean time for
the two mismatch combinations from the mean time for the two
match combinations. Five participants did not have responses
falling in all four categories. The analyses we report include 128
participants.
Procedural-Justice Manipulation. The experimenter told participants that the researchers were interested in how they
weighed different pieces of information in forming an opinion
and that they would be asked to review grievance procedures
that had been designed by a student committee. According to the
cover story, NYU had been using these procedures on a trial
Volume 20—Number 8
basis and would implement them for the rest of the student body
in the next few years. Participants then read one of the two
versions of the procedures used in Study 1. They also read three
handwritten comments supposedly written by students who had
had a firsthand experience with the grievance procedures. In the
justice condition, these comments expressed satisfaction with
the procedures and treatment; in the injustice condition, they
expressed dissatisfaction. After reading the procedures and
comments, participants gave their opinion about how fair or
unfair the procedures were.
Deliberative Group-Serving Behavior. Study 2 did not include
the brochure task from Study 1. Thus, in order to establish how
implicit group identification would relate to a deliberative
measure of cooperative behavior, we asked participants eight
questions about how likely they would be to perform different
types of cooperative behavior similar to those listed in the NYU
Cares brochure from Study 1. For example, they were asked, ‘‘If a
professor asked you to stay and photocopy some papers after
class, how likely would you be to do that?’’ and ‘‘If a student in
one of your classes asked you for tutoring, how likely would you
be to do so?’’ The 5-point response scale ranged from 1 (very
unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Responses to the items were summed
to create an overall score similar to that used in Study 1 (a 5 .65).
Spontaneous Group-Serving Behavior. After completing some
measures unrelated to this study, as well as some demographics
questions, participants called the experimenter back into the
cubicle. The experimenter, a fellow undergraduate student (female, blind to condition) pretended to take notes on her clipboard
(which had an NYU logo) while ‘‘accidentally’’ dropping a purple
NYU pen that had been sitting on the clipboard. She surreptitiously recorded whether each participant picked up the pen for
her within 5 s. Sixty-six participants retrieved the pen, and 62 did
not. Whether participants engaged in this spontaneous helping
behavior was our index of their spontaneous motivation to help
the group. Participants were subsequently debriefed and probed
for suspicion about the procedural-justice manipulation.
Results
Participants in the justice condition (M 5 5.51, SD 5 0.86)
again found the grievance procedures to be significantly more
fair than those in the injustice condition (M 5 2.40, SD 5 1.05),
t(131) 5 18.76, p < .001, prep 5 1.00. The two conditions did not
differ in implicit-identification scores, t(126) 5 0.71, p 5 .48,
prep 5 .53. No participants expressed suspicion about the procedural-justice manipulation.
Linear regression analysis predicting deliberative groupserving behavior showed a significant interaction of implicit
group identification and procedural-justice condition, b 5 .22,
t(124) 5 2.56, p 5 .01, prep 5 .95. As Figure 2 shows, among
participants who strongly identified with the group (1 SD above
the mean group-identification score), the level of group-serving
1029
Unfair Procedures Increase Group-Serving Behavior
Low Group Identification
High Group Identification
Group-Serving Behavior
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
Just
Unjust
Procedural-Justice Condition
Fig. 2. Results from Study 2: perceived willingness to engage in groupserving behavior as a function of implicit group identification and
procedural-justice condition. Low and high identification are values 1
standard deviation below and 1 standard deviation above the mean,
respectively.
behavior tended to be higher in the injustice condition than in the
justice condition, t(124) 5 1.56, p 5 .12, prep 5 .80.2 The opposite pattern was observed for weakly identified participants
(1 SD below the mean group-identification score), who reported
less likelihood of helping the group when procedures were unfair
than when they were fair, t(124) 5 2.07, p 5 .04, prep 5 .89.
A logistic regression analysis was performed on the second
dependent variable—spontaneous group-serving behavior. This
analysis revealed a significant interaction between implicit
identification and procedural-justice condition in predicting the
likelihood that a participant would pick up the pen, w2(1, N 5
128) 5 6.89, p 5 .009, prep 5 .95. As Figure 3 shows, the odds
that a strongly identified participant (1 SD above the mean) would
retrieve the group member’s pen increased in the injustice condition by a factor of more than 3, b 5 1.12, exp(b) 5 3.07, p 5 .04,
prep 5 .89. In contrast, the odds that a weakly identified participant (1 SD below the mean) would retrieve the group member’s
pen tended to decrease in the injustice condition by almost the
same factor, b 5 1.02, exp(b) 5 0.36, p 5 .06, prep 5 .86.
Discussion
In Study 2, we used a more implicit measure of group identification
and replicated our finding that highly identified group members
are more likely to exhibit group-serving behavior after learning
that the group is procedurally unfair than after learning that the
group is procedurally fair. This finding was replicated with a
2
At a more extreme level of high group identification (2 SDs above the mean),
the difference between the justice and injustice conditions was significant,
t(124) 5 2.13, p 5 .04, prep 5 .90.
1030
modified procedural-justice manipulation, a new measure of group
identification, and measures of both spontaneous and deliberative
group-serving behavior. This study provides further evidence that
individuals who identify with a group may address the group’s
procedural failings through their own group-serving behavior.
It is important to note that although measures of implicit
identification are presumably less subject to response bias and
experimenter demand than measures of explicit identification,
scores on our measure of implicit identification interacted with
the procedural justice of the group to predict behavior. Study 2
demonstrated the same pattern of results with regard to deliberative group-serving behavior as was found in Study 1, using a
more implicit measure of group identification. This finding helps
to confirm the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of group identification (Coats et al., 2000).
Further, when we looked at spontaneous group-serving behavior (i.e., helping the experimenter), we again found that
group-serving behavior was more likely among highly identified
participants when they learned that their group was procedurally unjust than when they learned that their group was procedurally just. Thus, two quite different measures of group-serving
behavior (spontaneous and deliberative) showed the same pattern. Among participants highly identified with the group, injustice of the group led to higher levels of helping.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Related research has found that systematically disrespected
group members will exert themselves on group-serving tasks in
an attempt to assert their own worth separate from that of the
Low Group Identification
High Group Identification
.9
Probability of Picking up Pen
33
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.0
Just
Unjust
Procedural-Justice Condition
Fig. 3. Results from Study 2: probability of retrieving a group member’s
dropped pen as a function of implicit group identification and proceduraljustice condition. Low and high identification are values 1 standard deviation below and 1 standard deviation above the mean, respectively.
Volume 20—Number 8
Heather Barry and Tom R. Tyler
group (Sleebos, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 2006). Sleebos et al.
manipulated respect versus disrespect of individual group
members that was based on their own achievements, whereas we
manipulated group shortcomings, for which individual group
members are not personally responsible. Thus, our findings
suggest that group members will exert themselves to the benefit
of fellow members even when they do not need to reassert their
own self-worth. Our results are in line with a study showing that
procedural fairness (i.e., respect from other group members)
increases contributions to the group’s welfare in a public-goods
dilemma among peripheral group members, but not among core
group members (De Cremer, 2002). In that study, as in our own,
feeling secure in one’s group membership decreased the tendency to repay fair procedures with group-serving behavior.
Some unexpected findings of the present research warrant
further investigation. The most striking such finding concerns
spontaneous helping. Although group-serving behavior among
the highly identified was more likely in the injustice condition
than in the justice condition, the mean probability of spontaneous helping behavior was lower among participants who
highly identified with the group than among those who were low
in group identification (see Fig. 3). Although it would be expected that people who identified more with the group would
help it more, a finding repeatedly demonstrated with measures of
explicit identification and deliberative helping behavior, we
found that people who scored lower in implicit identification
were more likely to pick up the pen and help the experimenter.
Why? One possibility is that people did not react to the dropped
pen solely in group terms. Their reaction may have also involved
personal helping and not been linked to group identification.
This suggests that a group helping focus may be separate from,
and may even undermine, a personal helping focus. Future research examining spontaneous behavior and implicit identification will be needed to clarify this point.
In these studies, we manipulated procedural justice, having
first measured group identification. Because the latter was not
manipulated, it is theoretically possible that a third variable is
responsible for the effects we found. However, even if group
identification is a proxy for such a personality variable, our
findings provide important clarity about how group members
respond to information about the group. Studies that manipulate
both group identification and group fairness could provide additional information about such a third variable, as well as insight about how to motivate group cooperation.
Previous theorizing has linked procedural justice to group
identification by suggesting that respectful treatment and fair
decision making by a group communicate identity-relevant
status information to group members (Tyler & Blader, 2000).
Because procedural justice is so important for identity, it may be
uniquely related to group-serving behavior. The question of
whether the same pattern of results we observed would also hold
for distributive justice, or even for more general self-esteem
threats, remains open.
Volume 20—Number 8
Our finding that short-term increases in group cooperation
follow moderate procedural unfairness is encouraging, as it
suggests that people will sometimes help fellow group members
even more, rather than leave the group, in response to evidence
of the group’s injustice. However, we predict that this effect has
limitations. Evidence of a group’s procedural unfairness should
eventually lead group members to distance themselves from
the group, because robust findings indicate that over time, the
identity cues provided by procedural fairness work to increase
group identification and subsequent cooperation (De Cremer &
Tyler, 2005). Future research should examine this process over
time, as well as investigate the limits to the findings reported
here. How unjust does a group have to be before its members
stop compensating for the group with their own behavior, and
simply leave the group?
REFERENCES
Aron, A., Aron, E., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships
as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 241–253.
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social
behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
230–244.
Blader, S.L., & Tyler, T.R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘‘fair’’ process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747–758.
Brann, P., & Foddy, M. (1987). Trust and the consumption of a deteriorating common resource. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31,
615–630.
Coats, S., Smith, E.R., Claypool, H.M., & Banner, M.J. (2000). Overlapping mental representations of self and in-group: Reaction
time evidence and its relationship with explicit measures of group
identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36,
304–315.
De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas:
The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1335–1341.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T.R. (2005). Managing group behavior:
The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and
cooperation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37,
151–218.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J.A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the
legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and
collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778.
Fazio, R.H., & Olson, M.A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and uses. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.
Ledgerwood, A., Liviatan, I., & Carnevale, P.J. (2007). Group-identity
completion and the symbolic value of property. Psychological
Science, 18, 873–878.
Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (2006). The paradox of
the disrespected: Disrespected group members’ engagement in
1031
Unfair Procedures Increase Group-Serving Behavior
group-serving efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
42, 413–427.
Smith, E.R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental
representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response
time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 873–882.
Smith, E.R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self:
Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 635–642.
Tropp, L.R., & Wright, S.C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 585–600.
1032
Tyler, T.R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural
justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia:
Taylor & Francis.
Wicklund, R.A., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (1981). Symbolic self-completion,
attempted influence, and self-deprecation. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 2, 89–114.
(RECEIVED 7/18/08; REVISION ACCEPTED 1/6/09)
Volume 20—Number 8