Advertisement

Disability and Procedural Fairness in the Workplace

  • Larry HeuerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In a recent law review article, Peter Blanck (2006) writes movingly about disabled individuals’ experiences with, and reactions to, workplace discrimination, “… they wanted real jobs. They did not want to live on welfare checks; they wanted paychecks. They fought to be participants in society and not view the world as outsiders from a nursing home bed.” (p. 694). Blanck’s stories are about disabled Americans who fought against discrimination. The individuals were discriminated against because of their disabilities: they were fired from their jobs; denied the necessary accommodations to perform their assigned tasks; and denied equal access to governmental services and public facilities.

Keywords

Procedural Justice Respectful Treatment Procedural Fairness Disable Individual Outgroup Member 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, J. S., & Rosenbaum, W. E. (1962). The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 161–164.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. L. (2000). “Deserving disabilities”: Why the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act should be revised to eliminate the substantial limitation requirement. Missouri Law Review, 65, 83–150.Google Scholar
  3. Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of the willingness to request an accommodation: Can requesters’ beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act? The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 85–99.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, L. (1993). The struggle for citizenship: The case of disabled people. Disability, Handicap and Society, 8(3), 235–248.Google Scholar
  5. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  6. 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(6), 747–758.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanck, P. (2001). Civil war pensions and disability. Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 109–238.Google Scholar
  8. Blanck, P. (2006). Americans with disabilities and their civil rights: Past, present, and future. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 66, 687–719.Google Scholar
  9. Blanck, P., & Marti, M. W. (1997). Attitudes, behavior, and the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Villanova Law Review, 42, 345–408.Google Scholar
  10. Bordieri, J. E., & Drehmer, D. E. (1987). Attribution of responsibility and predicted social acceptance of disabled workers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 30, 218–226.Google Scholar
  11. Bordieri, J. E., Drehmer, D. E., & Comninel, M. E. (1988). Attribution of responsibility and hiring recommendations for job applicants with low back pain. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 140–148.Google Scholar
  12. Braband, J., & Lerner, M. J. (1974). “A little time and effort”… Who deserves what from whom? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 177–181.Google Scholar
  13. Brockner, J. (1990). Scope of justice in the workplace: How survivors react to co-worker layoffs. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 95–106.Google Scholar
  14. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300–315.Google Scholar
  15. Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanations of a layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(5), 389–407.Google Scholar
  16. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2005). How, when, and why does outcome favorability interact with procedural fairness? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 525–553). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Martin, C. L. (1995). Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors’ reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(1), 59–68.Google Scholar
  19. Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1–2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  20. Clyman, R. I., Roth, R. S., Sniderman, S. H., & Charrier, J. (1980). Does a belief in a “just world” affect health care provides reactions to perinatal illness? Journal of Medical Education, 55, 538–539.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis: Erratum. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1215.Google Scholar
  23. Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 100–116.Google Scholar
  24. Colella, A., Paetzold, R. L., & Belliveau, M. A. (2004). Factors affecting coworkers’ procedural justice inferences of the workplace accommodations of employees with disabilities. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  25. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, O. L. H., and Ng, Y. K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.Google Scholar
  27. Correia, I., & Vala, J. (2003). When will a victim be secondarily victimized? The effect of observer’s belief in a just world, victim’s innocence and persistence of suffering. Social Justice Research, 16, 379–400.Google Scholar
  28. De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1335–1341.Google Scholar
  29. De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. L. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 211–228.Google Scholar
  30. De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005a). Am I respected or not? Inclusion and reputation as issues in group membership. Social Justice Research, 18(2), 121–153.Google Scholar
  31. De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005b). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 151–218.Google Scholar
  32. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.Google Scholar
  33. Diekmann, K. A., Sondak, H., & Barsness, Z. I. (2007). Does fairness matter more to some than to others? The moderating role of workplace status on the relationship between procedural fairness perceptions and job satisfaction. Social Justice Research, 20(2), 161–180.Google Scholar
  34. Dube, L., & Guimond, S. (1986). Relative deprivation and social protest: The person-group issue. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 201–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 459–479.Google Scholar
  36. Feather, N. (1992). An attributional and value analysis of deservingness in success and failure situations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 125–145.Google Scholar
  37. Feather, N. (1994). Attitudes toward high achievers and reaction to their fall: Theory and research concerning tall poppies. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 1–73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Feather, N. (2002). Deservingness, entitlement, and reactions to outcomes. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 334–349). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Feather, N. (2006). Deservingness and emotions: Applying the structural model of deservingness to the analysis of affective reactions to outcomes. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 38–73). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Feather, N. (2008). Effects of observer’s own status on reactions to a high achiever’s failure: Deservingness, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  41. Field, R. H. G., & House, R. J. (1990). A test of the Vroom-Yetton model using manager and subordinate reports. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 362–366.Google Scholar
  42. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 108–119.Google Scholar
  43. Furnham, A. (2005). The just world, charitable giving, and attitudes to disability. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 577–583.Google Scholar
  44. Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1992). Sphere-specific just world beliefs and attitudes to AIDS. Human Relations, 45, 265–280.Google Scholar
  45. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235–256). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means drive the need to believe in a just world. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1059–1073.Google Scholar
  48. Hafer, C. L. (2002). Why we reject innocent victims. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 109–126). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1989). Beliefs in a just world and reactions to personal deprivation. Journal of Personality, 57(4), 799–823.Google Scholar
  51. Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (2003). An analysis of empirical research on the scope of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 311–323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Healy, P. (2009, November 15). Advocacy Group Opposes ‘Miracle Worker’ Casting Choice. Retrieved from http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com.
  53. Heilman, M. E., Hornstein, H. A., Cage, J. H., & Herschlag, J. K. (1984). Reactions to prescribed leader behavior as a function of role perspective: The case of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 69, 50–60.Google Scholar
  54. Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279–1292.Google Scholar
  55. Heuer, L., Penrod, S., Hafer, C. L., & Cohn, I. (2002). The role of resource and relational concerns for procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1468–1482.Google Scholar
  56. Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Kattan, A. (2007). The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 573–610.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Heuer, L., & Stroessner, S. J. (2009). The multi-value nature of procedural justice. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  58. Houlden, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), 13–30.Google Scholar
  59. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7(1), 40–45.Google Scholar
  60. Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In G. Moskovitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.Google Scholar
  62. Karuza, J., Jr., & Carey, T. O. (1984). Relative preference and adaptiveness of behavioral blame for observers of rape victims. Journal of Personality, 52, 249–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 355–360.Google Scholar
  65. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  66. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051.Google Scholar
  67. Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 203–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Leung, K., Tong, K., & Lind, E. A. (2007). Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 476–489.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959.Google Scholar
  70. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  71. Lissak, R. I., & Sheppard, B. H. (1983). Beyond fairness: The criterion problem in research on dispute intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 45–65.Google Scholar
  72. Longmore, P. K. (1985). A note on language and the social identity of disabled people. American Behavioral Scientist, 28(3), 419–424.Google Scholar
  73. Louis, W. R., Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., Schuller, R. A., & Lalonde, R. N. (2007). Why do citizens want to keep refugees out? Threats, fairness and hostile norms in the treatment of asylum seekers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 53–73.Google Scholar
  74. Maes, J. (1994). Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice? Social Justice Research, 7, 69–90.Google Scholar
  75. Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 293–355). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  76. Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice: transforming attitudes to disability. London: The Women’s Press.Google Scholar
  77. Nagata, D. K. (1990). The Japanese-American internment: Perceptions of moral community, fairness, and redress. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 133–146.Google Scholar
  78. Nagata, D. K. (1993). Moral exclusion and nonviolence: The Japanese American internment. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues (pp. 85–93). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  79. Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Outcomes as affirmation of membership value: Material compensation as an administrative response to procedural injustice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1270–1282.Google Scholar
  80. Opotow, S. (1993). Animals and the scope of justice. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 71–85.Google Scholar
  81. Opotow, S. (1995). Drawing the line: Social categorization, moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 347–369). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  82. Opotow, S. (2007). Moral exclusion and torture: The ticking bomb scenario and the slippery ethical slope. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(4), 457–461.Google Scholar
  83. Peate, V. G., Platow, M. J., & Eggins, R. A. (2008). Collective voice and support for social protest among indigenous and non-indigenous Australians: Considering the role of procedural fairness in an intergroup conflict of interest. Australian Journal of Psychology, 60(3), 175–185.Google Scholar
  84. 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(4), 741–763.Google Scholar
  85. Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 3–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Sedekides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–331). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Simmons, C. H., & Lerner, M. J. (1968). Altruism as a search for justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 216–225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 588–597.Google Scholar
  91. Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2008). Morality and justice: An expanded theoretical perspective and review. In K. A. Hedgvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Advances in group processes. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  92. Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 305–326.Google Scholar
  93. Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309–341.Google Scholar
  94. Sunshine, J., & Heuer, L. (2002). Deservingness and perceptions of procedural justice in citizen encounters with the police. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 397–415). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Tajfel, H. (1982). The social psychology of inter-group relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.Google Scholar
  96. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In. S. Worchel (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
  97. Taylor, D. M., & McKirnan, D. J. (1984). A five stage model of intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 291–300.Google Scholar
  98. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  99. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566.Google Scholar
  100. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(3), 1–35.Google Scholar
  101. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850–863.Google Scholar
  103. Tyler, T. R. (2001). Cooperation in organizations: A social identity perspective. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 149–166). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  104. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  105. Tyler, T. R., & Griffin, E. (1991). The influence of decision makers’ goals on their concerns about procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(20), 1629–1658.Google Scholar
  106. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  107. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1990). Intrinsic versus community-based justice models: When does group membership matter? Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 83–94.Google Scholar
  108. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–192). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  109. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., Ohbuchi, K., Sugawara, I., & Huo, Y. J. (1998). Conflict with outsiders: Disputing within and across cultural boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2), 137–146.Google Scholar
  110. 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
  111. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1976). New directions in equity research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 1–42). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  112. Ward, A. C., & Baker, P. M. A. (2005). Disabilities and impairments: Strategies for workplace integration. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 143–160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Weiner, B. (1979). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  114. Weiner, B., Perry, R., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738–748.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Winnifred, L. R., & Taylor, D. M. (1999). From passive acceptance to social disruption: Towards an understanding of behavioural responses to discrimination. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  116. Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 994–1003.Google Scholar
  117. van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBarnard College, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations