ABSTRACT
OXENDINE, DAVID BRYAN. The Effects of Social Exclusion Threat and Justifications on Perceived Fairness of an Ethnic Validation Procedure: Implications for Lumbee Federal Recognition. (Under the direction of Rupert W. Nacoste.)
The purpose of the current study was to explore the effects of social exclusion threat negative affect on the evaluated fairness of a procedure that functions to validate ethnic membership using the Dimensional Voice Model (Bane, 1994). Participants consisted of 120
(60 = female, 60 = male) college students. The study design was a 2 (Gender) X 2
(Justification) X 3 (Procedure) factorial between-groups experimental design. Based on social exclusion theory, individuals may experience high levels of negative affect when they perceive a threat of exclusion from a group (Baumeister & Tice, 1990). It was hypothesized that a procedure designed to validate ethnic membership will result in social exclusion threat negative affect. A procedure designed to validate ethnic membership was hypothesized as being evaluated as unfair (Thibaut, Walker, LaTour, & Houlden, 1974; Lind & Tyler, 1988;
Tyler, 1990, 1994; Tyler & Lind, 1994; Walker, LaTour, Lind, & Thibaut, 1974).
Justifications (Bies, 1987a, 1987b, 1989; Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987, 1988;
Brotheridge, 2003; Skarlicki, Folger & Gee, 2004) before the procedure was tested as the rationale for the procedure introduced as procedural justification. Of two procedural justifications, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Science Foundation (NSF) justification was hypothesized as being perceived fairer. The results suggest that procedures designed to validate ethnic membership were evaluated as unfair. Additionally, the results indicated that procedural justifications might affect perceptions of fairness of the procedure. The data strongly supports the notion that these procedures may create an environment of negative affect with respondents evaluating the procedures as unfair. Implications for Lumbee Federal
Recognition are discussed.
©2004 David Bryan Oxendine
THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION THREAT AND JUSTIFICATIONS ON PERCEIVED FAIRNESS OF AN ETHNIC VALIDATION PROCEDURE: IMPLICATIONS FOR LUMBEE FEDERAL RECOGNITION
by DAVID BRYAN OXENDINE
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
PSYCHOLOGY
Raleigh
2004
APPROVED BY:
______Craig C. Brookins, PhD James E. Luginbuhl, PhD
______Samuel S. Snyder, PhD Rupert W. Nacoste, PhD Chair of Advisory Committee ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to Lumbee Indians everywhere in their quest for complete and full Lumbee Federal Recognition. I also dedicate this work to my parents, the late Grady G.
Oxendine and Lettie Mae Harris Oxendine and their lifelong love of education.
iii
BIOGRAPHY
David Bryan Oxendine is a Lumbee Indian doctoral student in the Psychology
Department at North Carolina State University. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in
Drama with a minor in Speech from Catawba College in 1982. David earned a professional degree from the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York City in 1987. In 1995 he received his Master of Science degree in Counselor Education from North Carolina State
University.
David is the younger of two children born to the late Grady G. Oxendine and Lettie
Mae Harris Oxendine, both retired educators of Pembroke, North Carolina. His sister Donna
Jean Locklear, also a retired educator lives in Pembroke with her husband Clyde. They have three children: Nicole is an educator, LaDonna is an undergraduate student in the Teacher
Education Program at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and Brandon is a graduate of North Carolina State University and is a meteorologist at the National Weather
Forecast Center in Raleigh, North Carolina.
David’s hobbies include photography in which he won a Life magazine contest in
1990. He was also commissioned to create an original photographic exhibit depicting
Lumbee Indian values for the Mint Museum of Art in Charlotte, North Carolina. His photographs have also been used in several textbooks, Time-Life books and most recently the
Smithsonian Institution’s Handbook of the North American Indian.
David has for 13 years been the Artistic Director for the Outdoor Drama Strike At The
Wind! which depicts the Lumbee Indians during the Civil War. David is currently
Assessment Coordinator and Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at
Pembroke in the School of Education. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisory committee for their support and guidance: Dr.
Craig C. Brookins, Dr. James E. Luginbuhl, Dr. Samuel S. Snyder and Dr. Rupert W.
Nacoste.
Through the excellence of Dr. Craig C. Brookins I have come to truly understand how all peoples of color share a common history. His course Psychology of the African
Experience has inspired me to design and create a similar course in the future concerning the
Lumbee experience.
I also appreciate the straightforward manner of Dr. James E. Luginbuhl. I remember his course in Advanced Social Psychology with his discussions concerning juries and how it impacted me when I found myself in the jury box. Dr. Samuel S. Snyder was the only person
I knew when I entered the Psychology doctoral program fresh from my Masters. I have always appreciated his dry, sharp wit. I am forever in both your debts.
This entire episode in my life would not have been a truly interdependent experience without the leadership and friendship of Dr. Rupert W. Nacoste. Our meetings at Border’s bookstore off Wake Forest road became a haven for us both. When the work with the dissertation was complete for each meeting, we would spend hours discussing any number of topics including politics, religion, and the social interdependence of life.
I would also like to thank Darnell Johnson who always greeted you with a smile.
Whenever I needed to know something I could always email or make a phone to her.
Finally, this project could not have been completed without the wonderful support I received from my family and friends. I also want to thank a person who supported me professionally, personally and emotionally…Cammie Hunt. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….………..vii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………...………………………….……………..xi
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….1
The Example Case………………………………………………….……….…………1
LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………..……….………………...3
Self-Concept, Ethnic Identity and Group Identity………………..………….…………3 Procedural Justice………………………….…..…………………….……….………...4 Decision and Process Control………..………………………………..………………..7 Truth and Justice…………………….…….……….….………………………………..9 Group Conflict…………………..….……..…………..……..………………………..13 Group-Value Model………..……………...……………………………….………….14 Procedural Justice and Social Standing……………………………………………….15 Interdependence Theory………………………….…………………………………...16 Social Status and Group Membership………………………………………………...18 The Relational Model of Authority……………………………….……………..……19 The Dimensional Voice Model…………………………………….….……………....22 Social Exclusion Theory……..…………………….………………………………….24 Justifications……………………………….………………………...…..…….……...25 The Current Research………………………………………..…..…………………….26 Hypothesis 1…………………………………………………………………..28 Hypothesis 2…………………………………………………………………..28 Hypothesis 3…………………………………………………………………..28 Hypothesis 4……………………………………………………….………….28 Hypothesis 5…………………………………………………………………..29 Hypothesis 6…………………………………………………………………..29
METHOD………………………………………………..……….………………………….30
Participants……………….……………………………..…………..….……………..30 Design………………………………………………….……………….……………..30 Procedure……………………………………………………………………………...32 Measures………………………………………………………………………………39
RESULTS…………………………………………………………………..………………..42
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...42 Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)………..….…….…..…………46 Analysis of Factorial Design: A Cautionary Note…..…………………………….…49 vi
Page
Manipulation Checks……………………………………………………….…..……50 Procedural Fairness………………………………………………………….50 Procedural Satisfaction………………………………………………………55 Hypothesis Testing……………………………………………………………….…..57 General Fairness……………………………………………………………...57 True Voice………….……...……...……...…………….……………….…...58 Misvoice…………………..……………………………………………….....61 Forced Voice………………………………………………………………....63 Positive and Negative Affect………………………………………………...64 Subsidiary Analysis……………………………………………………………….…72 Accuracy…………………………………………………………….………..72 Procedural Process Control……………………………………….………….77 Procedural Agreement……………………………………………….……….77 Procedural Information Control……………………………………….……..78
DISCUSSION………………………………….…………………………………………….80
Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………..82 Hypothesis 1…………………………………………………………………..82 Hypothesis 6………………………….……………………………………….84 Hypothesis 2…………………………………………………………………..85 Hypothesis 3…………………………………………………………………..87 Hypothesis 4…………………………………………………………………..89 Hypothesis 5…………………………………………………………………..90 Limitations……………………………………………………………………….….92 Internal Validity……………………………………………………………….92 External Validity………………………………………………………………93 Theoretical and Applied Implications………….……………………………………93 Social Exclusion Theory………….……….….……………………………….95 Justifications………………………………………………..…………………95 The Example Case: Lumbee Federal Recognition………………….…………96 Implications for Future Research……………………………….…………………...98 Conclusion…………………………….………………………….……………….…99
REFERENCES……………………………………………….…………………………….100
FOOTNOTES………………………………………………………………………………117
APPENDICES…………………………………………………...…………………………118
Appendix A Informed Consent Form……………………………….………….……119 Appendix B Scenarios……………...………...….……………………...……………121 Appendix C Measures……….………….…………………………………..………..130 Appendix D Tables……….……………………………………………………...…..140
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Demographics of Sample across Age, Gender, and Ethnicity by Frequency, Means, and Standard Deviation compared to Population……..……31
Table 2. Factor Loadings for Dimensional Voice Items………………………………….….44
Table 3. Factor Loadings for Varimax Orthogonal Five-Factor Solution...…………………45
Table 4. Factor Loadings for PANAS. ……………………………………………………...46
Table 5. PANAS Factor Loadings for Varimax Orthogonal Five-Factor Solution………….48
Table 6. Procedural Fairness Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect………………………………………………………………51
Table 7. Procedural Fairness Gender X Justification Interaction Means and Standard Deviations…………………………………………………….52
Table 8. Procedural Fairness Means and Standard Deviations for Gender X Justification X Procedure……………………………………………………….…..53
Table 9. Procedural Satisfaction Gender X Justification Interaction Means and Standard Deviations…………………………………………………….56
Table 10.True Voice Means and Standard Deviations for True Voice Main Effect……………………………………………………………59
Table 11.True Voice Gender X Justification Interaction Means and Standard Deviations…………………………………………………………….….60
Table 12. Misvoice Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect……….…..62
Table 13. Positive Affect Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect……..64
Table 14. Anxiety Means and Standard Deviations for Gender X Justification X Procedure………………………………………………………….66
Table 15.Troubled Means and Standards for Procedure Main Effect………..…….………..69
Table 16.Troubled Means and Standard Deviations for Gender X Justification X Procedure…………………………………………………………..70
viii
Page
Table17. Accuracy Justification X Procedure Interaction Means and Standard Deviations……………………………………………………..…………73
Table 18. Accuracy Gender X Justification X Procedure Interaction Means and Standard Deviations…………………………………………………..….……75
Table 19. Procedural Information Control Gender X Procedure Interaction Means and Standard Deviations…………………………………………………………..79
Table 20. Procedural Fairness and Group Difference Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure………….…141
Table 21. Procedural Fairness and Group Analysis of Variance for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure….……………...142
Table 22. Factor 1 General Fairness Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure……………………………………….…143
Table 23. Factor 2 True Voice Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure………………………………………….144
Table 24. Factor 3 Misvoice Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure………………………………………..…145
Table 25. Factor 4 Forced Voice Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………………………………..………146
Table 26. Factor 5 Accuracy Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………………………………………..147
Table 27. Factor 1 PANAS Positive Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure..…………………..……148
Table 28. Factor 2 PANAS Anxiety Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………...…..………..149
Table 29. Factor 3 PANAS Shame Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………………………150
Table 30. Factor 4 PANAS Antagonistic Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………………………151
Table 31. Factor 5 PANAS Troubled Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………….….……….152
ix
Page
Table 32. Procedural Fairness Manipulation Check Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………………….…..153
Table 33. Procedural Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure………….…………………154
Table 34. Procedural Fairness Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………….………155
Table 35. Procedural Satisfaction Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure…………….….…156
Table 36. Factor 1 PANAS Positive Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………………….157
Table 37. Factor 2 PANAS Anxiety Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………………….158
Table 38. Factor 3 PANAS Shame Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………………….159
Table 39. Factor 4 PANAS Antagonistic Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure……………….…160
Table 40. Factor 5 PANAS Troubled Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………………….161
Table 41. Factor 1 General Fairness Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………………….162
Table 42. Factor 2 True Voice Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………..……………163
Table 43. Factor 3 Misvoice Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure…………..164
Table 44. Factor 4 Forced Voice Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure……….…………165
Table 45. Factor 5 Accuracy Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure……….…………166
Table 46. Procedural Process Control Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………………………….167
x
Page
Table 47. Procedural Agreement Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure…………………………….168
Table 48. Procedural Information Control Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure……………………...……..169
Table 49. Procedural Process Control Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure………….………170
Table 50. Procedural Agreement Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure……………….…171
Table 51. Procedural Information Control Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure ……172
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Truth and Justice Conflict.………………………………….…….………..……..11
Figure 2. Procedural-Interdependence of Lumbee Federal Recognition….…...……………17
Figure 3. 2 (Justification) X 3 (procedure) X 2 (gender) Factorial Experimental Design……………………………………………………………...31
Figure 4. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues for Dimensional Voice……………………………..…43
Figure 5. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues for PANAS………………………..…………………..49
Figure 6. Procedural Fairness Gender X Justification X Procedure Interaction…………….54
Figure 7. Procedural Satisfaction Gender X Justification Interaction……………………....57
Figure 8. True Voice Gender X Justification Interaction……………………………..……..61
Figure 9. Anxiety Gender X Justification X Procedure Interaction………………..……….67
Figure 10. Troubled Gender X Justification X Procedure Interaction……………………….71
Figure 11. Accuracy Justification X Procedure Interaction………………………………….74
Figure 12. Accuracy Gender X Justification X Procedure Interaction………………………76
Figure 13. Procedural Information Control Gender X Procedure Interaction……………….79
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness
The Effects of Social Exclusion Threat and Justifications on Perceived Fairness of an Ethnic
Validation Procedure: Implications for Lumbee Federal Recognition
Social psychologists have long held that human beings are social creatures and affiliative by nature, seeking to spend time in groups (Tyler, 1989, 1990; Van Prooijen, Van den Bos & Wilkes, 2004). As reported by Phinney (1990), one of the earliest conceptualizations of social identity theory was made by Kurt Lewin, who asserted that individuals need a firm sense of group identity in order to maintain a sense of well being.
What happens if this group affiliation was made not by choice, such as joining a political group or a certain church group, but a group affiliation that chose you by birth?
What if this group affiliation is a racial or an ethnic group affiliation? In the society we live in today certain connotations are implied just by mentioning this type of group affiliation.
Belonging to this type of group, group members not only have to deal with possible stereotypical and prejudicial attitudes toward them, but in order to receive certain benefits the government offers for membership in certain groups, some groups as a whole have to follow a very detailed and specific procedure in order to be “recognized” officially.
The Example Case
Long before contact with the first European settlers, the brown-skinned people who have lived along the Lumber River valley have always known their American Indian1 heritage. Living along the Lumber River Valley, or in its ancient name “Lumbee,” the
Lumbee developed an oral history and oral tradition that was rich and textured with a heritage of “Indianness” stretching over many centuries (Blu, 1979a, 1979b; Dial, 1993; Dial
& Eliades, 1996; Evans, 1971; Evans, 1979; Knick, 1997, 2001; MacMillan, 1888;
McPherson, 1915; Sider, 1993, 2003; Star, 1994; Wolfram, Dannenburg, Knick & Oxendine,
2002). Indeed the Lumbee people have never questioned their heritage as an Indian people Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 2
(Dial, 1993; Dial & Eliades, 1996; Knick, 1997, 2001; Sider, 1993, 2003; Wolfram et al.,
2002).
Then as American society and the political motivations of the time changed, those changes created an atmosphere and an environment that required a people to “prove” from where and how they came to exist. Such was the case of the Lumbee people of Robeson
County in southeastern North Carolina. Consequently, since 1885, through various procedures, the Lumbee have attempted to gain full Federal Recognition as an American
Indian tribe but have continued to be unsuccessful (Wilkins, 1993, 2002).
The goal of the present study is to extract from the concrete case of Lumbee attempts to obtain Federal Recognition, relevant procedural justice features to study the heretofore- uninvestigated social psychological dynamics of procedures designed to authenticate membership in a group. On the surface those elements are: procedural structure and fairness, whereby participants involved in a procedure evaluate the procedure as fair; modes of
Dimensional Voice, whereby the procedure is evaluated to have dimensions of voice (True
Voice, Misvoice and Forced Voice) and social exclusion threat, whereby participants involved in a procedure are effected by the procedure in terms of affect change (positive and negative affect). This is of interest because the consequences of the procedural issues may be seen in the economic, educational and social status of a group such as the Lumbee (Dial,
1993; Dial & Eliades, 1996; Sider, 1993, 2003; Wolfram et al., 2002). That is, when society creates a procedure where one must validate their group ethnic membership, the mere presence of such a procedure as well as its function to validate one’s group ethnicity may be perceived as unfair. If so, that would mean it would be fruitful to explore the social psychological issues of procedural fairness, modes of voice and effects of social exclusion
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 3 threat. The point of this study is to demonstrate the logical and empirical links between validation procedures and its effects on group members.
Review of the Literature
Self-Concept, Ethnic Identity and Group Identity
According to social identity theory (Phinney, 2003; Tajfel, 1978, 1981; Tyler &
Blader, 2000), simply being a member of a group provides individual group members with a sense of belonging that contributes to a positive self-concept. This component of social identity is defined as that part of an individual’s self-concept, which derives from their knowledge of their membership in a social group, combined with the value and emotional significance afforded that membership (Brookins, 1996; Phinney, 1990, 2003; Phinney &
Alipuria, 1990; Phinney & Chavira, 1992; Phinney, Chavira & Tate, 1993; Tajfel, 1978,
1981; Tyler & Blader, 2000).
Personal concept theories propose that self-esteem is a basic human need and that individuals react to threats to their identity in a variety of ways that enable them to continue to view themselves and their own reference group in a positive way thereby maintaining positive self-esteem (Brookins, 1996; Phinney, 2003; Phinney & Chavira, 1992; Phinney, et al., 1993; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Blader, 2002). Much of the work on self-esteem and ethnic identity has been conducted within the framework of social identity by social psychologists.
Ethnic self-identity is the “the accurate and consistent use of an ethnic label, based on the perception and conception of themselves as belonging to an ethnic group” (Rotheram &
Phinney, 1987, p. 17). Ethnic attitudes are the affective component of one’s views about their own group and other groups in the larger society and are determined by both positive
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 4 and negative experiences. On the basis of social identity theory, ethnic identity is assumed to include the strength of one’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group and valence, or the degree to which attitudes toward one’s group membership are positive (Phinney, 2003; Tyler &
Blader, 2000). For a healthy, functional and psychologically stable ethnic identity one needs a positive reference group orientation. According to Brookins (1996), in reference to African
Americans, a positive reference group orientation would be associated with characteristics that would include; (a) knowledge of one’s ethnic history and culture; (b) positive esteem toward one’s ethnic group and culture; (c) belief in the strengths and abilities of the ethnic group; (d) adherence to one’s ethnic group’s value system that reflects positive principles of the group including the importance of human relationships; (e) competency and skills that are consistent with the principles that allow one to function adequately in the American system on a social and economic level; (f) and commitment to activities which promote the development of one’s ethnic group and its integration in the wider social system.
In order to achieve these goals, the basic problem to be solved via social cooperation is that everyone cannot have what they want at the same time. Social justice has evolved to regulate people’s efforts at cooperation within groups by specifying reasonable solutions to conflicts that arise among people trying to coordinate their values and behaviors (Tyler &
Blader, 2000).
Procedural Justice
Several theorists had suggested that distributive justice, “the comparative allocation of goods and bads to people” (Furby, 1986, p. 154), is an important feature of social behavior including major influence by Adams’ equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965; Homans, 1961;
Lind & Tyler, 1988). Adams’ (1963, 1965) equity theory states that social behavior responds
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 5 profoundly to the standard of equity. That standard is that rewards received should be proportional to the contributions of group members. In the event that outcomes are not proportional to the contributions applied, then members of the group will experience inequity distress, which produces a negative motivational state (Adams, 1963, 1965; Furby, 1986;
Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Procedural justice is a systematic study of social decision-making that began with the work of John Thibaut, Laurens Walker, and their colleagues in the early 1970's (Lind &
Tyler, 1988). When the term procedural justice was first used, it referred to the “social psychological consequences” of decision-making procedures on fairness judgments (Azzi &
Jost, 1997; Cohen & Greenberg, 1982; Daly, 1995; Ebreo, Linn & Vining, 1996; Lind,
Kanfer & Earley, 1990; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Makkai & Braithwaite, 1996; Musante, Gilbert,
& Thibaut, 1983; Tata, 2000a, 2000b; Thibaut et al., 1974; Tyler, 1990, 1994; Tyler & Lind,
1994; Walker et al., 1974). Most of the research findings in the literature concerning procedural justice state that people react more favorably to decisions based on procedures believed to be fair than those believed to be unfair (Brockner, Ackerman, Greenberg,
Gelfand, Francisco & Chen, Leung, Bierbrauer, Gomez, Kirkland & Shapiro, 2001).
Procedural justice, a recent addition to the study of justice, deals primarily with the structure of a decision-making process. The focus of the early studies was to examine the psychological impact of how procedures are structured and implemented. Most of the studies were conducted in courtroom settings (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000). Since then, the arena of study has been extended to other areas as well such as organizational settings (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Consistently, investigators have demonstrated that the structure of procedures of conflict resolution can influence individuals’ perception of
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 6 courtroom proceedings of the allocation of scarce resources. It has been shown that perceptions of procedural fairness are not related to individual outcomes (Greenberg, 1986,
1987; Houlden et al, 1978; LaTour et al., 1976; Thibaut & Walker, 1978; Van den Bos,
Vermunt & Wilke, 1997). This research has shown that procedural justice has strong effects on the attitudes about institutions or authorities, as opposed to attitudes about the specific outcome in question. Therefore, procedural justice may be more highly related to institutional evaluations that require a long-term perspective, such as organizational commitment, than it is with the outcome of specific decisions (Folger & Konovsky, 1989;
Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Regardless of the outcomes, distributive and procedural features that are perceived to be fair receive higher satisfaction with the results (Beugre & Baron, 2001; Blader, Chang, &
Tyler, 2001; Greenberg, 1986, 1987; Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Huffman & Cain, 2001;
Moorman, 1991; Nacoste, 1987; Organ & Moorman, 1993; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). In addition to increased satisfaction with outcomes, procedures perceived to be fair produce several other outcomes. Studies have shown that perceived fairness is related to job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony, turnover intention and trust in management (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). In addition, Folger and Konovsky (1989) found that an individual’s performance outcome was not related to their perceptions of the organization, but the employee’s perceptions of the procedures used in making evaluations was the lone variable that was related to organizational commitment. Consequently, the evaluation of the procedures themselves as the sole factor that determines the degree of fairness given the particular organization.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 7
Decision and Process Control
Thibaut and colleagues conducted a series of studies to examine participants’ perceptions of different types of conflict resolution procedures. This has come to be known as the distinction between process control and decision control. Process control is control over the presentation of disputant claims to a third party. Decision control is the ability to make the final decision. Research on participants’ perceptions of different types of conflict resolution procedures examines factors that may influence a person’s choice of a conflict resolution procedure (Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). These factors have been examined as influencing a person’s choice of a conflict resolution procedure such as: autocratic, arbitration, moot, mediation or bargaining procedures. Those procedures differ in the amount of process and decision control given to disputants in order to resolve a conflict. It was found that procedures high in decision control allow disputants to determine for themselves how a resource will be allocated (LaTour, Houlden, Walker & Thibaut, 1976,
Houlden, LaTour, Walker & Thibaut, 1978, Thibaut & Walker, 1978; Van den Bos et al.,
1997). Procedures high in process control allow disputants to determine how much and what individualized information they present in their own behalf. Autocratic procedures for example allow the least amount of process and decision control to disputants because a third party interviews the disputants and renders a decision. Bargaining allows the most process control to disputants as well as the most mutual decision control among the disputants by negotiating among themselves in the absence of a third party. Arbitration provides process control for the disputants while providing decision control to a third party decision-maker. In other words, both disputants are allowed to provide relevant information and present their case to an impartial third party decision-maker who renders a decision (LaTour et al., 1976).
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 8
For example, Walker et al. (1974) suggested that all disputants involved in a conflict would prefer procedures that allowed them to present their cases fully to an impartial third party decision-maker. Participants when given the choice preferred an adversarial procedure to an inquisitorial procedure to settle disputes. It was found that participant satisfaction with an adversarial procedure was unrelated to the outcome or their beliefs about the crime.
Walker et al. (1974) investigated further these results to determine if these procedures were evaluated to be fair. Participants were asked to choose among five procedures with varying degrees of process and decision control and their preferred choice of conflict resolution procedure without knowing their perspective roles in the dispute, not knowing whether they would be the victim or defendant in an assault case. For both conditions, (with or without knowledge of role) participants still preferred an adversarial procedure to resolve the dispute.
When participating in adversarial procedures most disputants prefer to reduce conflict by presenting their cases to an impartial third party decision-maker (Houlden et al., 1978;
LaTour et al., 1976). LaTour et al. found that the best procedures are those “that allow each disputant to make a full and independent presentation of their case to an impartial third party who has final responsibility for rendering a decision on the matter” (p. 351). In other words, disputants in arbitration procedures have more process control than do disputants in other forms of conflict resolution. Participants evaluated procedures more favorably regardless of the outcome where the third party decision-makers had high decision but low process control and disputants had high process but low decision control and were free to present their cases fully (LaTour et al., 1976). Under these conditions, participants expected and assumed that
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 9 the third party decision-maker would weigh evidence without bias and make the appropriate decision.
Numerous studies have suggested that disputants are willing to relinquish decision control to a third party who has the final decision as long they retain process control of the presentation of their case (Houlden et al., 1978; LaTour et al., 1976; Leung & Lind, 1986;
Lind & Lissack, 1985; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut et al., 1974;
Walker et al., 1974). According to Thibaut and Walker (1978), the “allocation of process control determines the essential character of the procedure” (p. 246). This evidence led to research that emphasized voice or value-expression for process control effects by arguing that merely experiencing an opportunity for expression was viewed as fair by disputants regardless of the outcome (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Lind et al., 1990). From a participants’ perspective, increases in perceptions of fairness and control (voice) are related to the value of the voice solicitation. If participants feel that a decision-maker fails to give adequate input consideration, or if the voice solicitation is perceived to be disingenuous, the outcome is likely to be frustration and resentment (Price, Hall, Van den Bos, Hunton, Lovett & Tippett,
2001). In summary, the best procedures based on this research are those “that allow each disputant to make a full and independent presentation of his case to an impartial third party who has final responsibility for rendering a decision on that matter” (LaTour et al., 1976;
Price et al., 2001). From these and other studies, Thibaut and Walker (1978) developed their theory of procedure.
Truth and Justice
In their theory of procedure, Thibaut and Walker (1978) state that a distinction can be made between disputes that involve conflicting beliefs and disputes that involve the
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 10 distribution of outcomes. Thibaut and Walker suggest in their theory a distinction between truth-disputes and justice-disputes in terms of a continuum.
One of the major features of the Thibaut and Walker (1978) theory of procedural justice literature is outcome correspondence (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988;
Musante el al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). In a relationship that is correspondent, the outcomes of the participants are in harmony among the participants. On the other end of the continuum, outcomes are in conflict, or are noncorrespondent. In other words, when one of the participants gains, the other loses. When the nature of the relationship is correspondent, the outcomes are considered “cognitive” or noncompetitive, but when the outcome is noncorrespondent, the nature of the conflict is a material conflict of interest
(LaTour et al., 1976; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Thibaut and Walker (1978) distinguish these as conflicts of truth and justice. A cognitive conflict is considered to require a search for truth since both parties are seeking a common solution that is the correct or the best outcome for both parties. This may include how best to approach a task, among all available information, which information is the best to be used to solve the problem and if there are several approaches, which approach is the best. Conflicts such as these are normally very easily resolved as compared to conflicts of interest, or conflicts of noncorrespondence. Truth conflict disputes may be resolved quickly especially when there is some standard or measuring stick for measuring the proposed solution (LaTour et al., 1976;
Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978).
According to their theory of procedure, Thibaut and Walker (1978) conflicts where one disputant will be satisfied with the decision while the other disputant is dissatisfied are noncorrespondent. In some cases, the conflict involves both types of conflict. Thibaut and
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 11
Walker (1978) term this a mixed-motive dispute. In mixed–motive disputes, what is important is to resolve cognitive disputes by choosing the best solution to the problem in addition to the conflict of interest where disputants are concerned with personal individual outcomes. Figure 1 demonstrates the mixed-motive dispute and how it fits in the truth and justice model. The upper left cell with the X represents situations where little or no situations of this type exists.
Conflict of Interest
High Low Cognitive Conflict Low X Justice
Truth Mixed High
Figure 1. Truth and Justice Conflict. ______
Note. From A theory of procedure by Thibaut & Walker (1978), California Law Review, 66, p.560.
In those cases where mixed-motive disputes occur, Thibaut and Walker (1978) suggest that the most effective procedure will be hybrids that combine scientific inquiry and adversarial arbitration. In group situations where decisions have to be made before the meeting adjourns, members may have cognitive conflicts and conflicts of interest among themselves. Implementing adversarial procedures, participants will have an opportunity to present their own views on their own terms, thereby having input in the procedure. This suggests that having an opportunity to express their views and having input in the procedure before the decision is rendered, disputants view these procedures as more fair (LaTour et al.,
1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1978, Walker et al. 1974, Williams, 1999).
The majority of the literature focuses on situations in which the social environmental conditions of the relationship or dispute are that of a material conflict of interest where one
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 12 party maximizes their outcomes at the expense of the other (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind &
Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1978). These disputes have strongly conflicting interests whereas any outcome that may satisfy one disputant is most likely to be strongly opposed by the other. For such disputes, the only standard for resolving these conflicts are general distributional prescriptions such as those in Adams’ (1963, 1965) equity theory where outcomes from relationships should be in consistent proportion to inputs across all members of the relationship. Therefore, the resolution of such a conflict of interest is viewed as something more than finding the truth as in the scientific endeavor. Thibaut and Walker
(1978) suggest that this kind of conflict of interest since the time of Aristotle have been characterized as the objective of “justice.”
In a recent study by Forrest (2002), the effects of procedural fairness (fair and unfair) and type of conflict (cognitive vs. conflict of interest) suggested that fairness was found from a procedural fairness by conflict type interaction. In that case, fairness was more important to group members when accomplishing a task for which the members had a material conflict of interest.
An example of a material conflict of interest could be a dispute between two family members regarding the distribution of the contents of a will. In most cases, the outcome of such a dispute favors one party and is correspondingly unfavorable to the opposing party.
For this reason, Thibaut and Walker (1978) suggest that successful achievement of procedural justice in conflicts of interests is best obtained using procedures where process control in the parties is employed to settle the dispute. By doing so, disputant process control provides control over the development of individualized information in the hands of those most likely to have information relevant to the decision.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 13
Early research began to focus on legal scenarios in the experimental designs. These studies suggest that decision-making procedures play a large role in people’s evaluation of justice (Furby, 1986; LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Rasinski, 1992; Thibaut et al.,
1974; Thibaut & Walker, 1978). Thibaut et al. (1974) found that the perceived fairness of decision-making procedures positively affects the satisfaction of the procedure independent of the outcome.
Group Conflict
Researchers have suggested that conflict within groups can postpone or even impede effective group decisions. The resulting intragroup conflict influences a member’s desire to associate with others of the group and may affect their desire to work in future groups
(Gastil, 1990; Kessler & Mummendey, 2001; O’ Connor, Gruenfeld, & McGrath, 1993).
Conflict within groups can be both positive and negative demonstrating an explanation and analysis of social change and progress and is not only a central and fundamental concept but can be positive (Coser, 1956). On the other hand, conflict within groups can be detrimental to the relationship whereas the goals, values and interests of the group do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the relationship was established (Coser, 1956).
Researchers began to examine the effects of process control, the extent to which disputants were able to determine the information and evidence upon which a verdict is rendered and the means by which that information was presented to a third party decision- maker. Musante et al. (1983) examined not only the notion that participants choose adversarial procedures but also allowed participants to choose the decision rule to be used in their cases. In this study, participants not given a choice felt less involved with the procedure than those who were able to choose. In other words, participants allowed to choose felt more
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 14 satisfied with the procedure and with the verdict than did those who were not allowed a choice. Musante et al. (1983) stated:
Participants who exercised control through their selection of a decision rule evaluated
both a legal procedure and the unfavorable outcome resulting from that procedure
more positively than their yoked counterparts who did not exercise control. (p. 236)
Therefore, participants allowed having more control or choices over a decision rule felt more satisfied with the outcome of a dispute and the conflict resolution procedure than did participants that did not have a choice.
Group-Value Model
This and other research demonstrated the importance of participant voice within a resource allocation procedure. The group-value model proposed by Lind & Tyler (1988) suggests that voice effects stem from the notion that when disputants are allowed an opportunity for expression they sense that their view is valued and are considered full- fledged valid members of the group. People within a group care about voice because the perception is that their views are worthy and procedures that allow voice accord people status regardless of the outcome of the procedure (Lind et al., 1990; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith,
1996). Lind et al. (1990) differentiated types of voice as instrumental (influential to the task or decision) and noninstrumental (not influential to the task or decision). Participants who had instrumental voice may have had actual control over the task while participants with noninstrumental voice perceived they had control over the task. In conclusion, participants rate procedures as more fair when they are able to present their case on their own terms and are more likely to affiliate with those groups or institutions that implement fair procedures.
Belonging to such groups provides group members with information regarding the
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 15 appropriateness of their attitudes and values. Additionally, groups provide emotional and material support as well as an important source of material resources (Tyler, 1990; Tyler &
Blader, 2000; Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1994).
Procedural Justice and Social Standing
According to Clay-Warner (2001), the group-value model states that people care about procedures beyond concern about outcome distribution. People wish to be treated in a procedurally fair manner because this treatment indicates high status. This concern about procedures reflects a desire for high status because such status in turn increases self-esteem
(Clay-Warner, 2001).
The group-value model assumes that group membership is a powerful aspect of social life since humans are affiliative by nature. The identity of the group is an important feature and is deemed vital to individuals in the group. Therefore, group members will put aside their own self-interest in order to help the status of the group and their standing in the group
(Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler et al., 1996).
Lind and Tyler (1988) suggest that the perception of the neutrality of the decision- making procedure, trust in the third party and that the experience enhances the social standing within the group influence both procedural preferences and judgments of procedural justice. The first factor, neutrality refers to equal treatment of all parties, reflecting honesty and lack of bias. The second factor, trust, refers to individuals perceiving authorities to be trustworthy insofar as they strive to be fair and ethical. The final factor, standing, is communication through polite behavior, dignified treatment, and respect for one’s rights
(Clay-Warner, 2001; Lind & Tyler, 1988). All three of these factors: neutrality, trust and
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 16 standing are concerned with the relationship of the perceiver to the authorities using the procedure (Tyler & Lind, 1994), an issue of interdependence.
Interdependence Theory
Interdependence theory was first introduced in Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) work in their attempt to outline the dynamics of the dyadic relationship. Initially the conceptualization of interdependence was of the dyad or two-person relationship. In essence, the basis of an interpersonal relationship is the interaction and its consequences in terms of costs and rewards to those in the relationship. The type of relationship affects how important costs and rewards are to each member of the dyad. The costs incurred from a certain behavior in the interaction are factors, which inhibit the viability of the relationship. The greater the inhibition is to overcome the greater the cost of this specific behavior. On the other hand, rewards are pleasures or satisfactions that result from behavior from the interaction. The greater this reward is perceived by the other member of the dyad, the more positive is the effect on the relationship and the likelihood the relationship will continue. The degree of the costs and rewards by members of the dyad depends on the needs, desires, and values, their abilities to carry out the behaviors and how compatible these behaviors are to the needs and values of the dyad (Harrison & McCallum, 1983; Kelley, 1979; Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978; Nacoste, 1994, 1996).
How does this relate to our Example Case, Lumbee Federal Recognition? The environmental conditions of the situation in which these procedures take place are interdependent in a dynamic interaction. To further these theories, Nacoste (1996) developed procedural-interdependence to explain how a policy incorporates the interdependent relationships between the organization that makes a decision, the target in-group and the
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 17 target out-group. As seen in Figure 2, the relationship between the Lumbee, the target in- group is in an interdependent relationship with the United States government and with other
American Indian tribes, the target out-group in this case. Any action taken by any of the relevant participants transforms the given dimensions into effective dimensions. The government is under restraint from the American people and by other unrecognized tribes, who have entered the Federal Recognition process, along with recognized tribes who fear their funding may be in jeopardy.
United States Government
American Society
Procedure
Target In-Group (Lumbee) Target Out-Group (Other Tribes)
Figure 2. Procedural-Interdependence of Lumbee Federal Recognition.
These restraints and pressures create psychological reactance by which the participants respond with behaviors that strive to reestablish their sense of freedom (Nacoste
& Hummels, 1994). Recent studies concluded that unfair procedures directed at a fellow group member affect other group member’s perceptions of group process, performance and value in ways similar to those members excluded from the process (Forrest, 2002; Van den
Bos & Lind, 2001). In other words, procedural-interdependence, an extension of interdependence theory, affects negatively both the in-group and out-group member perceptions of their third party decision-makers (Nacoste, 1992, 1994, 1996). In essence,
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 18 certain issues of Lumbee psychology have been in a state of psychological reactance behaving in ways to regain their freedom of self-definition (Sider, 1993, 2003).
Social Status and Group Membership
If the majority group in a society holds the traits and characteristics of an ethnic group in low esteem, then ethnic group members are faced with a negative social identity
(Phinney, 1990, 2003). Identifying with a low-status group may result in low self-regard.
There is an extensive literature dealing with the notion of “self-hatred” among disparaged ethnic group members concerning whether and to what extent membership or identification with a group of low-status relates to a poorer self-concept (Phinney, 1990, 1992, 2003;
Phinney et al., 1993; Tajfel, 1978, 1981, 1982).
Tajfel (1978, 1981, 1982) suggested that members of low-status groups seek methods to improve their status. People’s views of themselves are linked to their views of the status of the groups to which they belong. This linkage to a high-status group supports a positive view of the self, increasing self-esteem (Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler et al., 1996).
Individuals may try to disassociate themselves from the group and go more inline with the majority group. This effort to disassociate from one’s group may be considered by many group members as “selling out” thereby creating animosity within the group. It has been evidenced that in some ethnic groups this creates a split within the social structure of a community (Sider, 1993). This split can manifest itself at all levels of the social group. It can be found in the home, the neighborhood, the local government, a split into other social groups (different tribal affiliations), and in churches.
The link between procedural justice and status is based on a social identity-oriented model of the psychology of justice, articulated and demonstrated in the group-value model
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 19
(Lind & Tyler, 1998), as mentioned previously, and the relational model of authority (Tyler
& Blader, 2000; Tyler & Lind, 1992). The importance of this research is that it emphasizes that people evaluate their relationships with their groups based on the fairness of the procedures they experience in their contact with these groups (Tyler & Blader, 2002). These types of procedures are related to the self-interest model, whether it is a social group, a political system, or a work organization, people join and remain in such groups because they believe that the outcome will be in their best interest in the end (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Fair procedures communicate an important message regarding relational concerns, leading group members to think: (1) that their group is of high status and (2) that they are of high status within the group (Tyler & Blader, 2002; Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler, & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos et al., 1998; Van den Bos, 1999; Van Prooijen et al., 2002; Van Prooijen et al., 2004). Both of these evaluations are believed to play a major role in the construction and maintenance of a positive social identity, which is an important psychological objective (Tajfel, 1978, 1981,
1982).
The Relational Model of Authority
The relational model of authority argues that people search for information about the extent to which they are respected and valued by their group members (Lind & Tyler, 1988;
Sousa & Vala, 2002; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos, Wilke, &
Lind, 1998; Van den Bos, 1999; Van Prooijen, Van den Bos, & Wilke, 2002; Van Prooijen et al., 2004). In other words, group members pay particular attention to the way in which they are treated by relevant group authorities, since these individuals tend to be regarded as representatives for the group (Tyler, & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos et al., 1998; Van den Bos,
1999; Van Prooijen et al., 2002). The relational model suggests a fundamental and causal
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 20 relation between status and procedural fairness. Research suggests that procedural fairness is associated with identity and compliance with authorities, whereby; individuals draw a sense of self-worth from group membership (Ambrose, 2002; Ambrose, Harland & Kulik, 1991).
The relational model of justice offers individuals with an indication of their full membership in the group and whether that membership should be a source of pride. Thus, the group- value model and the relational model of authority may be a more accurate predictor of self- esteem and group pride that one gains from being valued by a respected authority rather than self-esteem and group pride gained from one’s accomplishments (Schroth & Shah, 2000). In sum, fair procedures by group authorities, those considered of high status, may indicate that one is valued and respected as a group member.
How does group membership and status effect the perception of procedural justice?
Based on the fundamental premise of social identity theory individuals seek and prefer to belong to groups that are highly valued (Tajfel, 1982). Such membership allows the individual to maintain a positive social identity, which in turn affects dimensions of self- esteem. In a study by Clay-Warner (2001), female attorneys as the targeted group detect the greatest amount of procedural injustice while male judges will detect the least amount of procedural injustice. Male judges were found to be least motivated to detect bias that affects female attorneys because doing so they receive no positive information concerning their own position within the group. In other words, they may have more motivation not to detect bias because the presence of such discrimination may damage their sense of group pride (Clay-
Warner, 2001). Another hypothesis supported by this study, female judges would detect more bias than either male judges or male attorneys toward female attorneys. Female judges being in a double out-group (females in high status roles and females in subordinate roles)
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 21 would identify more strongly with their subordinate role counterparts, female attorneys. It was concluded that female judges would recognize that their own status as a female judge in a male dominated environment would only improve when the status of female attorneys also improved (Clay-Warner, 2001). This suggests that when an individual has identities or memberships in both a high status and low status group, identification with the low status group may be more salient and therefore, more sensitive to bias or discrimination providing group members with a significant degree of value and emotional “connectiveness.”
What happens when a procedure is in place to validate this “connectiveness?”
Affirmative action policies are procedures set up to empower disenfranchised groups. In other words, these polices should not because of their existence be problematic for the target- group and non-target group members (Nacoste, 1993, 1994). Consider on the other hand, the effects of a policy in place that its structure is to weigh heavily on traditionally particularistic or non-merit based criteria, in this case group membership. Particularistic criteria are those factors that are not achievable through effort or performance. Such factors could include those one is born with such as ethnicity; weight, hair and eye color could be examples. On the other hand, universalistic criteria are factors that are achievable through effort and performance such as gaining an education and work experience (Nacoste, 1993, 1994). The goal of these policies is to determine if the group as a whole or group members individually based on the decision-maker’s criteria are entitled to the benefits offered by the agency or organization (Nacoste 1990). Questioning the “authenticity” of a group member’s ethnicity, the group members may assume that the agency controlling and implementing the procedure has a low opinion of the group and their qualifications to meet the ethnic standards of the agency.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 22
Group membership provides clues for appropriateness for their attitudes, values and behaviors. Additionally, group membership provides emotional support, a sense of belonging and a source of material resources (Tyler, 1989, 1990; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler et al.,
1996). These are but a few of the reasons individuals seek to belong to groups and find them rewarding and very troubled if threatened by being rejected from the group.
According to the vulnerability hypothesis (Nacoste, 1994), procedures such as these could create four possible manifestations: (1) group members’ develop negative emotional reactions and self-doubt concerning their ethnicity, (2) group members’ expect that the majority group will negatively view ethnicity, (3) group members’ belief that the agency is not truly committed in carrying out the procedure “fairly,” and (4) group members’ will develop self-doubt in their ethnic authenticity based on the majority group’s qualifications.
An environment such as this could create outcomes for the group member that would likely increase their vulnerability to negative feedback from the majority group.
Differing from affirmative action policies, tribal Federal Recognition is in place to police, to question the group member’s historical significance and therefore validate their identity as a legitimate member of their “alleged” ethnic group. A policy such as this on the surface may be about entitlement and acceptance, but it may also be both subtly demeaning.
The implementation of such a policy may arouse negative emotional responses and self- doubt or identity doubt concerning their ethnicity (Sider, 1993, 2003).
The Dimensional Voice Model
The Dimensional Voice Model introduced by Bane (1994) is an extension of existing theories of input and voice. The Dimensional Voice Model suggests there are three dimensions of voice: True Voice, Misvoice, and Forced Voice. The first dimension, True
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 23
Voice is the current notion of voice. The second and third dimension, Misvoice and Forced
Voice identify those procedures that appear to provide voice, but actually restrict it (Bane,
1994, 1999).
True Voice is defined as when a procedure provides an opportunity for disputants to communicate their point-of-view or to provide information to a third party decision-maker.
“True Voice” exists when the individual believes the information conveyed is (1) not distorted in any way (accurate and relevant to the decision being made), and (2) the information conveyed is voluntary (Bane, 1994, 1999). The procedure is considered not to allow for True Voice if either or both of these conditions are not met.
Misvoice is defined as the disputant having an opportunity to provide information, but considers the information used to make the decision to be distorted. This distortion occurs when the disputant feels their opinion is not genuinely represented (Bane, 1994,
1999). Misvoice also contains elements of Leventhal’s (1980) notions of accuracy of information, bias suppression, and correctability or the idea that there is some provision for correcting bad decisions. Additionally, Misvoice includes the perception of irrelevance.
The third dimension, Forced Voice, occurs when the disputant feels forced to provide information that they may not want to supply. The issue of “force” is subjective and is the perception of pressure to provide one’s opinion, point of view or information (Bane, 1994).
This may be information that the disputant does not feel comfortable about revealing to the decision-maker and which the disputant considers to be an invasion of privacy. In sum, procedures that vary the amount and type of voice, especially Misvoice and Forced Voice may lead individuals to feel alienated from the group resulting in anticipation of social exclusion (Twenge & Campbell, 2003).
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 24
Social Exclusion Theory
Social exclusion theory states that individuals experience high levels of negative affect when they think there is a threat that they may anticipate exclusion from a group
(Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Leary, 1990; Nacoste, 1994; Van Beest, Wilke, & Van Dijk,
2003; Van Prooijen et al., 2004). This feeling of anxiety should arise at the moment the person is separated from the group or at the moment the individual discovers that such a separation has happened or is likely to happen (Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Leary, 1990;
Twenge & Campbell, 2003; Van Beest et al., 2003). People may experience exclusion anxiety when they anticipate being judged and viewed as less valuable to their own group.
Furthermore, this anxiety may heighten if they sense being judged negatively by the majority group.
Another element of social exclusion theory is the question of whether an individual can trust others not to exploit them or exclude them from important relationships or groups.
In a recent study, researchers suggest that social exclusion can produce large increases in self-defeating behaviors (Twenge, Catanese & Baumeister, 2002). People experiencing social exclusion engage in self-defeating and more aggressive behaviors in which they are able to pursue various positive outcomes that happened to be associated with costs (Twenge,
Baumeister, Tice & Stucke, 2001; Twenge et al., 2002). Similarly, the threat of social exclusion leading to possible threats of aloneness in the future has been shown to have negative cognitive effects on intelligent thought (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002). This decline was evidenced by a reduction on complex cognitive tasks such as effortful logic and reasoning. The implication for Lumbee Federal recognition is that social exclusion would
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 25 have a self-defeating effect on tribal members that could affect their ambition to make a mark on the world.
Justifications
Whatever the nature of a procedure, its use is typically given some justification such as in the Lumbee Case, ethnic and cultural validation. Justifications or explanations have been shown to have a powerful influence on human behavior and have been offered as a relatively simple and effective human resource tool for promoting perceptions of fairness
(Bies, 1987a, 1987b, 1989; Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987, 1988; Bies, Shapiro,
& Cummings, 1988; Greenberg, 1990; Heilman, McCullough & Gilbert, 1996; Ployhart &
Ryan, 1998; Ployhart, Ryan, & Bennett, 1999; Bobocel & Farrell, 1996; Shaw, Wild &
Colquitt, 2003). Interactional justice involves interpersonal behavior conducted by those who implement procedures and make decisions, such as whether the decision-makers provide explanations for their decisions and if they treat all parties affected by the decision with dignity and respect (Bane, 1999; Beugre & Baron, 2001; Bies & Moag, 1986; Brockner et al.,
2001; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki et al., 2004; Tata, 2000a). There is substantial empirical support for the effect of fair interpersonal treatment on individual’s attitudes and behaviors through fair procedures (Beugre & Baron, 2001; Brockner et al., 2001; Skarlicki &
Folger, 1997; Skarlicki et al., 2004; Tata, 2000a).
Justifications are explanations in which the decision-maker assumes responsibility but attempts to legitimize a negative outcome (Heilman et al., 1996; Ramona Bobocel & Farrell,
1996). Differently, causal accounts (Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Bies et al., 1988) refer to explanations a decision-maker cites as situational circumstances for a negative outcome. The primary underlying goal of the account giver is to minimize personal responsibility for a
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 26 negative outcome (Heilman et al., 1996; Bobocel & Farrell, 1996). Much research has demonstrated how providing a reasonable justification or explanation for a decision has a generally positive effect on reactions to that decision, especially if the outcome is unfavorable (Heilman et al., 1996; Ployhart et al., 1999; Bobocel & Farrell, 1996; Shaw et al., 2003).
The Current Research
This study examines the perceived fairness of a procedure that is designed to validate a person’s ethnic group membership. From the literature of procedural justice, the dimensional voice model and social exclusion theory, we know that appears that reference to marital status, race, religion, gender, age, or handicapped status may be viewed as unfair, but applicants may feel under obligation to answer such questions in order to be considered for the particular outcome (Bane, 1994). Rosenbaum (1973) found that issues such as personal finances, religious topics (church membership, church attendance) family history, racial or ethnic background was considered an invasion of privacy when asked during a selection process. With that in mind, three separate procedural conditions will be implemented. The
White American’s Participating (WAP) procedure respondents will read a scenario actually requiring a physical measurement and participation in the procedure. The White American’s
Observing (WAO) procedure respondents will read a scenario that describes a procedure but does not require a physical measurement and participation. In other words, they are observers of this procedure. The Control group procedure does not mention ethnicity or physical measurement and participation.
The effects of justification, explanations or the reasoning for a particular procedure will be explored for effects on procedural fairness. Much of the research on justification
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 27 deals with causal accounts or justifications given after the procedure and the decision has already been rendered. According to Thibaut and Walker (1978) and their theory of procedure, the immediacy and power of correspondent and noncorrespondent outcomes are central to the notion of justifications in the current study. In this study, justifications will be implemented as the rationale for the procedure, a priori, before respondents participate in or a decision is made from the procedure. When respondents participate in a procedure, the purpose or rationale for the particular procedure being used is expected to affect their perceptions of fairness. In other words, procedural justification is expected to effect respondent’s perceptions of fairness of the procedures. Therefore, in the present study, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) as justifications are used as the rationale for the procedures.
Finally, although not a specified hypothesis, gender is expected to have an effect on perceptions of fairness of the procedures. The rationale for this is the nature of the conflict between correspondent and noncorrespondent outcomes. According to Gilligan (1982), female moral reasoning is through the lens of “the ethic of care” where the male view is through “the ethic of justice.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) represents a correspondent cognitive conflict and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) represents the noncorrespondent material conflict of interest. It is expected that males will perceive procedures justified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the ethic of justice perspective, while females will perceive procedures justified by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) through the ethic of care perspective.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are made:
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 28
Hypothesis 1: Participants involved in a procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership will evaluate the procedure as more unfair than a control group.
Social exclusion theory research has shown that when people think they will be excluded from a social group they may experience high levels of anxiety or negative affect
(Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Leary, 1990; Nacoste, 1994; Van Beest, Wilke, & Van Dijk,
2003).
Hypothesis 2: Participants involved in the White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure will perceive more True Voice than the White American’s Participating (WAP) or the Control group.
Previous research has shown that people perceive procedures that allow True Voice to be evaluated as fairer than procedures that do not allow True Voice (Bane, 1994, 1999; Lind et al., 1990; Lind & Tyler, 1988) which is when a procedure provides an opportunity for disputants to communicate their point-of-view or to provide information to a third party decision-maker.
Hypothesis 3: Participants involved in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) justification will perceive a procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership to lead to Misvoice as compared to the National Science Foundation (NSF) or Control group.
Procedures that ask for information that are perceived as irrelevant to the outcome of the procedure in order to render that decision will be evaluated as unfair (Bane, 1994, 1999).
According to Bane (1994) this use of irrelevant information is Misvoice
Hypothesis 4: Participants involved in a procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership will perceive the White American’s Participating (WAP) and White American’s
Observing (WAO) procedure to lead to Forced Voice more so than the Control group.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 29
Forced Voice can be considered as an invasion of privacy or when procedures ask for information from individuals deemed inappropriate (Bane, 1994, 1999).
Hypothesis 5: Participants involved in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Justification White American’s Participating (WAP) procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership will result in negative affect more so than the National Science
Foundation (NSF) White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure.
The idea is that a procedure designed to validate ethnic group membership based on
Misvoice and Forced Voice both of which lead to feelings of social exclusion threat negative affect. Recent research on affirmative action reveals that individuals feel that procedures that give more weight to group membership than to qualifications are evaluated as unfair
(Nacoste, 1990).
Hypothesis 6: Two types of justifications will be used: Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and a National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant are the justifications for the procedure (see Appendix B). Using this method of operationalizing justifications, the situational circumstances, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provide the justification for a procedure to be carried out even if viewed as a negative procedure (Bies, 1989; Bies & Moag, 1986;
Bies & Shapiro, 1987, 1988; Bies et al., 1988; Heilman et al., 1996; Ployhart et al., 1999;
Bobocel & Farrell, 1996; Shaw et al., 2003). Therefore:
Participants in the National Science Foundation (NSF) justification condition will
perceive the procedure fairer than participants in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) justification condition.
Research on managerial accounts and justifications has suggested that by providing justifications for a questionable action legitimizes the action rather than excuse responsibility
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 30 for the action procedure (Bies, 1989; Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987, 1988; Bies et al., 1989; Heilman et al., 1996; Ployhart et al., 1999; Bobocel & Farrell, 1996; Shaw et al.,
2003). Studies have suggested that for most people fairness requires that decisions be justified so that the action might be understood and found acceptable (Bies, 1989; Bies &
Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987, 1988; Bies et al., 1989). For the present study, the questionable action is the procedure and the justification is the rationale for the procedure.
Method
Participants
The participants for the study were undergraduate students participating to fulfill a course requirement in introductory psychology. One hundred twenty participants were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions in small groups and all participants received full credit for participation and were debriefed on the nature of the study. Because of the nature of the study, only White participants were included in the study. There were 60 females (50%) and 60 males (50%) in the study. The ages ranged from 17 to 26 years of age with a mean age of 18.78. All other descriptive data are presented in Table 1.
Design
The present study is a 2 (Gender) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) factorial between-groups design (see Figure 3). Procedural justification was operationalized in two ways: (a)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and (b) National Science Foundation Grant
(NSF). The participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups across two levels of procedural justification. The experimental groups will be as follows:
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 31
Procedure Justification Gender WAP WAO Control
Female DHS Male
Female NSF Male
Figure 3. 2 (Gender) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) Factorial Experimental Design.
(a) White Americans’ Participating (WAP); (b) White Americans’ Observing (WAO); and
(c) Control. The last two factors are gender: (a) female and (b) male.
Table 1
Demographics of Sample across Age, Gender, and Ethnicity by Frequency, Means, and
Standard Deviation compared to Population
______
n M SD Sample N M SD Population Percentage Percentage ______
Age 17 years 2 18.78 1.45 1.7 4 19.04 1.93 2.5 18 71 59.2 85 52.1 19 26 21.7 35 21.5 20 9 7.5 16 9.8 21 6 5.0 12 7.4 22 2 1.7 3 1.8 23 1 .8 2 1.2 24 1 .8 2 1.2 25 1 .8 1 .6 26 1 .8 2 1.2 33 1 .6 Gender
Female 60 50.0 81 49.7 Male 60 50.0 82 50.3
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 32
Table 1 (continued).
Demographics of Sample across Age, Gender, and Ethnicity by Frequency, Means, and
Standard Deviation compared to Population
______
n M SD Sample N M SD Population Percentage Percentage ______
Ethnicity African American 25 15.3 American Indian 1 .6 Asian American 11 6.7 Hispanic 2 1.2 White 120 100.0 120 73.6 Other 2.5 Arab American 1 East Indian 2 Iranian 1 ______
Note. n = 120 and N = 163.
Procedure
At the beginning of the session, once all participants were present, the experimenter said the following:
Good morning (afternoon). My name is David Oxendine. This is an experiment
entitled Decision Making. Please read and sign the informed consent form and return
it to me. Then read the scenario and complete several short questionnaires
concerning the scenarios.
Participants then entered one of three isolated rooms where they read and signed an informed consent form (Appendix A) outlining the study. Afterwards participants were randomly assigned to one of the two justification conditions and to one of the three procedural
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 33 experimental conditions. One condition was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) procedural justification manipulation. The participants in the White American’s Participating
(WAP) condition will read the following scenario:
As a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on America, the Bush Administration and the
United States Government in cooperation with several government intelligence
agencies including the FBI, the CIA and the newly formed Department of Homeland
Security have begun extensive research on how to identify people from different
ethnic groups. This university is one of 5 universities in the United States to be
included in this research project. Since this study is a national security matter, you
will be asked to sign a secrecy clause. Your participation in this research is very
important. Nothing less than the security of our nation is at stake in this new age of
terrorism. We have to find ways to know who is from what groups to protect
ourselves. As one of 5 universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a
method to determine who are true White Americans. The other universities will be
working on other groups. We need your help. You will be asked to participate in a
series of examinations and tests. We are using research from government scientists
and experts. Based on this research, certain physical attributes have been shown to
determine individuals who are true White Americans. Some of these examinations
will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such tasks as measuring your
head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your permission will be required for
these procedures. You will then be asked to take a series of questionnaires. Your
cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 34
After hearing the scenario the participants actually participated physically in the experiment by having certain parts of their bodies measured to include the circumference of their skulls, the distance between their ears and nose, distance from ear lobes to fingertips will be measured. After the measurement session, the participants read the following:
After being measured, please complete the questionnaires.
The participants in the White American’s Observing (WAO) condition read the following:
You are asked to read the following scenario from a current research project. Please
put yourself in this situation. After reading the scenario you will be asked to answer
several questionnaires asking for your reactions to the research. What follows is the
scenario: As a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on America, the Bush
Administration and the United States Government in cooperation with several
government intelligence agencies including the FBI, the CIA and the newly formed
Department of Homeland Security have begun extensive research on how to identify
people from different ethnic groups. This university is one of 5 universities on the
east coast to be included in this research project. Since this study is a national
security matter, you will be asked to sign a secrecy clause. Your participation in this
research is very important. Nothing less than the security of our nation is at stake in
this new age of terrorism. We have to find ways to know who is from what groups to
protect ourselves. As one of 5 universities, we have been assigned the task of
developing a method to determine who are true White Americans. The other
universities will be working on other groups. We need your help. You will be asked
to participate in a series of examinations and tests. We are using research from
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 35
government scientists and experts. Based on this research, certain physical attributes
have been shown to determine individuals who are true White Americans. Some of
these examinations will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such
tasks as measuring your head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your
permission will be required for these procedures. You will then be asked to take a
series of questionnaires. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Thank you
for reading the scenario. Please take the time to answer the following questionnaires.
Thank you again for your time.
This group only read the procedures and was not actually physically examined. At this point all participants completed the questionnaires.
The participants in the Control condition read the following scenario:
You are asked to read the following scenario from a current research project. Please
put yourself in this situation. After reading the scenario you will be asked to answer
several questionnaires asking for your reactions to the research. What follows is the
scenario: As a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on America, the Bush
Administration and the United States Government in cooperation with several
government intelligence agencies including the FBI, the CIA and the newly formed
Department of Homeland Security have begun extensive research on how to identify
degrees of Americanism. This university is one of 5 universities in the United States
to be included in this research project. Since this study is a national security matter,
you will be asked to sign a secrecy clause. Your participation in this research is very
important. Nothing less than the security of our nation is at stake in this new age of
terrorism. We have to find ways to know who is a patriot from other groups in order
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 36
to protect ourselves. As one of 5 universities, we have been assigned the task of
developing a method to determine who are true Americans. We need your help. You
will be asked to answer several questionnaires. We are using research from
government scientists and experts. You will then be asked to take a series of
questionnaires asking your reflection of these scientific methods. Your cooperation
will be greatly appreciated.
The participants then completed the questionnaires.
Participants randomly assigned to the National Science Foundation (NSF) procedural justification followed the same format as above. The only difference is the introduction to their scenarios. The scenarios for the first two experimental conditions is as follows:
With a grant provided by the National Science Foundation, research has begun on
social groups and ethnicity. This extensive research is charged to develop methods to
better identify people from different ethnic groups based on physical attributes. This
university is one of 5 universities in the United States to be included in this research
project. As one of 5 universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a
method to determine who are true White Americans. The other universities will be
working on other groups. We need your help. We are using research from
government scientists and experts. You will be asked to participate in a series of
examinations and tests. Based on this research, certain physical attributes have been
shown to determine individuals who are true White Americans. Some of these
examinations will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such tasks as
measuring your head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your permission will
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 37
be required for these procedures. You will then be asked to take a series of
questionnaires. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
The scenario for the second experimental condition is as follows:
You are asked to read the following scenario from a current research project. Please
put yourself in this situation. After reading the scenario you will be asked to answer
several questionnaires asking for your reactions to the research. What follows is the
scenario: With a grant provided by the National Science Foundation, extensive
research continues on social groups and ethnicity. This research is charged to
develop methods to better identify people from different ethnic groups based on
physical attributes. This university is one of 5 universities in the United States to be
included in this research project. As one of 5 universities, we have been assigned the
task of developing a method to determine who are true White Americans. The other
universities will be working on other groups. We need your help. You will be asked
to participate in a series of examinations and tests. We are using research from
government scientists and experts. Based on this research, certain physical attributes
have been shown to determine individuals who are true White Americans. Some of
these examinations will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such
tasks as measuring your head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your
permission will be required for these procedures. You will then be asked to take a
series of questionnaires. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
The scenario for the control condition is as follows:
With a grant provided by the National Science Foundation, extensive research on
Americanism continues. This research is charged to develop methods to better
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 38
identify degrees of Americanism. This university is one of 5 universities in the United
States to be included in this research project. As one of 5 universities, we have been
assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true Americans. We
need your help. We are using research from government scientists and experts. You
will be asked to answer several questionnaires. You will then be asked to take a
series of questionnaires asking your reflection of these scientific methods. Your
cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
At this point all participants completed the questionnaires.
Since there will be no screening of participants based on ethnicity, all participants’ that take part in the study will be utilized. Each participant’s ethnicity will be identified from his or her Informed Consent Form. For example, if a participant is For example, if a participant is other than White based on their self-disclosure from their informed consent form, their scenario will read, “we have been assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Other, Select one) Americans.” In this way, all participants regardless of their ethnicity will benefit by being allowed to participant in this process. After the debriefing and the study is complete, only the data from
Caucasian participants will be used for data analysis.
After all participants completed reading the scenarios and the questionnaires, the experimenter debriefed the participants as follows:
Any questions? I am interested in people’s perception of the fairness of procedures.
There were six versions of the scenarios that you read. Three versions had one
justification for the scenario as The Department of Homeland Security and the other
was The National Science Foundation. Each scenario varied the amount and the type
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 39
of input you had in the procedure. I will use the information you provided today to
test a model of how input people have in procedures affects their perceptions of its
fairness and how the type of input makes a people feel the threat of exclusion. Any
questions?
At this time participants were given research credit for their participation. Also participants were given an opportunity to ask questions or provide comments before dismissal.
Measures
Each justification condition, the White Americans’ Participating (WAP), the White
Americans’ Observing (WAO), and the Control condition participants answered an
Americanism questionnaire as part of the procedure (see Appendix C). This questionnaire consists of 20 randomly selected questions from the Immigration Guide website
(http://www.immigrationguide.com/citq.htm). Sample questions include, “How many stars are there in our flag? What do the stars on the flag mean?, What color are the stripes?”
The nature of voice and of the procedure was assessed using a modified measure developed by Bane (1994) to explore the Dimensional Voice Model. Items were selected based on the dimensions of True Voice, Misvoice or Forced Voice. A similar version of these items had a reliability estimate of (Cronbach’s alpha) of .88 (Bane, 1999). Bane (1994) conducted a principle components factor analysis of the manipulation check items which resulted in four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four factors were: Degree of
Input (DI), Objective Accuracy/Relevance (OAR), Subjective Pressure (SP), and Subjective
Irrelevance (SI). The factors are indicated following the items below. In addition, the following item will be included to determine general perceived fairness, “ In your opinion,
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 40 how fair was this procedure?” Each of the following items was rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale:
1. To what extent was the information you provided accurate? (OAR) 2. To what extent were you able to tell the experimenter your opinion about being an American? (DI) 3. To what extent did you feel pressured into providing information during the procedure? (SP) 4. To what extent was the information concerning you relevant? (OAR) 5. To what extent did you agree with the procedure? (SP) 6. To what extent did you believe the information used in the procedure was irrelevant? (SI)? 7. To what extent was the information not related to your status as an American? (OAR) 8. To what extent did you have the opportunity to share your opinions? (DI) 9. To what extent was the information you gave in the evaluation provided voluntarily? (DI) 10. To what extent was decision based on information provided by you? (DI) 11. To what extent did you feel forced to reveal your opinion to the experimenter? (SP) 12. How willing would you been to talk about your status as an American? (DI) 13. How much input did you have in the procedure? (DI) 14. How many opportunities did you have to tell your side of the story? (DI) 15. How satisfied are you with this procedure? 16. Using this procedure, how likely is it that a fair decision will be made? 17. In your opinion, how fair was this procedure? 18. If you had been the experimenter, how fair would you have thought the procedure was? 19. How serious do you take the Department of Homeland Security? 20. Most people would say this procedure is fair. 21. Evaluation procedures can be used for a variety of reasons. The evaluation procedure you just experienced or learned about was set up to identify what?
The choices for question 21 would be (A), Patriotism, (B) True White American, (C)
Ethnicity, or (D) Group Identity. Item’s 16, 17, 18 and 20 are a procedural manipulation check. Item 19 is a manipulation check concerning the salience of the justification of the procedure.
To determine the degree of social exclusion resulting from the negative feedback from the experimental manipulation the Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA)
Schedule (PANAS) developed by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988) was implemented. The
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 41
PANAS is the most frequently used measure of mood (Egloff, Schmukle, Burns, Kohlmann
& Hock, 2003; Terracciano, McCrae & Costa, Jr., 2003). According to Baumeister et al.
(2002), Twenge et al. (2002) and their work with social exclusion, this is a standard, respected, and frequently used measure of affective state dimensions. PA reflects the extent a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. High PA is a state of high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement where low PA is a state sadness and lethargy.
NA is a general dimension of subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement of aversive mood states including, anger, contempt, disgust, fear and nervousness where low NA is a state calmness and serenity (Watson & Tellegen, 1988). Internal consistency reliabilities with
Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .86 to .90 for PA and from .84 to .87 for NA (Watson et al.,
1988). The PANAS consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions rated on 5-point Likert-type scale from 1(very slightly or not at all) to 5(extremely).
The lists of words are as follows:
PA interested NA irritable NA distressed PA alert PA excited NA ashamed NA upset PA inspired PA strong NA nervous NA guilty PA determined NA scared PA attentive NA hostile NA jittery PA enthusiastic PA active PA proud NA afraid
Reliability analysis revealed 10 items for both subscales as follows: PA: interested, alert, excited, inspired, strong, determined, attentive, enthusiastic, active, and proud. NA: irritable, distressed, ashamed, upset, nervous, guilty, scared, hostile, jittery, and afraid (Watson et al.,
1988).
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 42
In the directions, Watson et al. (1988) tested the scale using various time instructions for participants to answer based on how they feel at this moment, today, past few days, week, past few weeks, year or in general. For the purpose of this study, the at this moment time frame will be used to determine how socially excluded the participants feel immediately after the experimental manipulation.
To gain credibility with the guise of determining patriotism, three items were used that tap into the core elements of the patriotism attachment: love of country and pride in the nation (Peña & Sidanius, 2002). The three items are (a) “I have great love for the United
States”, (b) “ I am proud to be an American,” and (c) “ I find the sight of the American flag very moving.” All items were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scoring is the higher the number, the stronger the patriotism. This was found to have a reliability estimate (Cronbach’s alpha) of .77 (Peña &
Sidanius, 2002). The final form of the questionnaires can be found in Appendix C.
Results
Data Analysis
Data management was accomplished by means of a factor analysis of the 19
Dimensional Voice items to identify general factors. This was followed by a factor analysis of the resulting clusters to determine the pattern of responses. The extraction method was a principle components analysis with a varimax orthogonal rotation with Kaiser normalization in order to make the factors more meaningful. Only factors with an eigenvalue greater than one were retained. This can be shown visually with a scree plot in Figure 4. The scree test
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 43
Scree Plot 8
7
6
5
4
Eigenvalue 3
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Component Number
Figure 4. Scree plot of eigenvalues for Dimensional Voice. criterion is to retain all eigenvalues in the sharp descent part of the plot before the eigenvalues start to level off (Green & Salkind, 2003). Based on this criterion, five factors were retained. Variables with a factor weight of .40 or greater were included in the analysis as factors. The five factors were labeled Fairness, True Voice, Misvoice, Forced Voice and
Accuracy. The items, factor loadings, eigenvalues and variance explained are presented in
Tables 2 and 3. Means and standard deviations for each of the five factors are presented in
Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 respectively in Appendix D. Items that shared loadings (items
2, 5, 10, 15, 16) were analyzed to be discussed later.
Table 2
Factor Loadings for Dimensional Voice Items ______
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ______
Factor 1 General Fairness 17. In your opinion, how fair was this procedure? .88 .23 .10 .18 .09 18. If you had been the experimenter, how fair .88 .12 .22 .01 .06 would you have thought the procedure was?
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 44
Table 2 (continued).
Factor Loadings for Dimensional Voice Items ______
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ______
20. Most people would say this procedure was fair. .82 .26 .20 .01 .07
Factor 2 True Voice 8. To what extent did you have the opportunity to .28 .67 .24 -.21 .17 share your opinions? 13. How much input did you have in this procedure? .14 .80 .05 .05 -.04 14. How many opportunities did you have to tell .22 .75 .13 .13 .01 your side of the story?
Factor 3 Misvoice 4. To what extent was the information concerning .04 -.31 .79 -.03 -.06 you relevant? 6. To what extent did you believe the information -.35 -.11 .66 -.10 -.03 used in the procedure was irrelevant? 7. To what extent was the information not -.31 .18 .69 -.01 -.10 related to your status as an American?
Factor 4 Forced Voice 3. To what extent did you feel pressured into .15 .05 .04 .77 .09 providing information during the procedure? 9. To what extent was the information you gave .13 .01 .11 .67 .33 in the procedure provided voluntarily? 11. To what extent did you feel forced to reveal .13 -.11 -.16 .73 -.09 your opinion to the experimenter? 12. How willing would you have been to talk -.12 .15 .28 .58 -.15 about your status as an American?
Factor 5 Accuracy 1. To what extent was the information you .05 -.02 .10 .22 .84 provided accurate?
Shared Factor Loadings 2. To what extent were you able to tell the experimenter your opinion about being an American? .31 .41 -.26 .09 .45 5. To what extent did you agree with the procedure? .35 .41 -.59 -.20 .10 10. To what extent was the decision based on information provided by you? .16 .49 .04 .05 .49 15. How satisfied are you with this procedure? .61 .50 -.16 -.31 .17 16. Using this procedure, how likely is it that a fair decision will be made? .62 .51 -.28 -.15 .14 ______
Note. n = 120. Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great Extent.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 45
Table 3
Factor Loadings for Varimax Orthogonal Five-Factor Solution ______
Factor Variance Item Loadings Eigenvalue Explained ______
Factor 1 General Fairness 6.712 35.324 17. In your opinion, how fair was this procedure? .88 18. If you had been the experimenter, how fair .88 would you have thought the procedure was? 20. Most people would say this procedure was fair. .82
Factor 2 True Voice 2.102 11.062 8. To what extent did you have the opportunity to .67 share your opinions? 13. How much input did you have in this procedure? .80 14. How many opportunities did you have to tell .75 your side of the story?
Factor 3 Misvoice 1.418 7.463 4. To what extent was the information concerning .79 you relevant? 6. To what extent did you believe the information .66 used in the procedure was irrelevant? 7. To what extent was the information not .69 related to your status as an American?
Factor 4 Forced Voice 1.322 6.959 3. To what extent did you feel pressured into .77 providing information during the procedure? 9. To what extent was the information you gave .67 in the procedure provided voluntarily? 11. To what extent did you feel forced to reveal .73 your opinion to the experimenter? 12. How willing would you have been to talk about .58 your status as an American?
Factor 5 Accuracy 1.105 5.813 1. To what extent was the information you .84 provided accurate?
Shared Factor Loadings 2. To what extent were you able to tell the experimenter your opinion about being an American? 5. To what extent did you agree with the procedure? 10. To what extent was the decision based on information provided by you? 15. How satisfied are you with this procedure? 16. Using this procedure, how likely is it that a fair decision will be made? ______
Note. n = 120. Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great Extent.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 46
Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
A principal components factor analysis was conducted on the 20 item PANAS
(Watson et al., 1988) to determine general factors. This was followed by a factor analysis of the resulting clusters to determine the pattern of responses. A varimax orthogonal rotation with Kaiser normalization was used in order to make the factors more meaningful. Only factors with an eigenvalue greater than one were retained. The items, factor loadings, eigenvalues and variance explained are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Means and standard deviations for PANAS are presented in Tables 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 respectively in
Appendix D. This can be shown visually with a scree plot in Figure 5. The scree test criterion is to retain all eigenvalues in the sharp descent part of the plot before the eigenvalues start to level off (Green & Salkind, 2003). Based on this criterion, five factors were retained. This differs from Watson et al., (1988) who found two factors of positive affect and negative affect. Variables with a factor weight of .40 or greater were included in the analysis as factors. The five factors were labeled positive affect for the positive affect subscale and for the negative subscale anxiety, shame, antagonistic, and troubled.
Table 4
Factor Loadings for PANAS ______
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ______
Factor 1 Positive Affect Interested .44 .15 -.02 -.26 -.35 Inspired .82 .08 .16 -.05 .08 Strong .74 .25 -.21 .05 -.05 Determined .81 .03 -.24 .15 -.03 Attentive .49 -.31 .03 .28 -.24 Enthusiastic .82 .09 .05 -.19 .09 Active .75 -.14 .00 .10 -.15
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 47
Table 4 (continued).
Factor Loadings for PANAS ______
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ______
Proud .85 .11 -.06 -.08 -.03
Factor 2 Anxious Nervous .14 .58 .05 .18 .20 Scared .08 .80 .11 .02 .15 Jittery .00 .47 .36 .12 .05 Afraid .02 .78 .15 .08 -.04
Factor 3 Shame Ashamed -.03 .17 .84 .15 -.01 Guilty .06 .22 .85 .07 .06
Factor 4 Antagonistic Hostile .00 .35 .20 .71 .01
Factor 5 Troubled Distressed -.08 .18 .31 -.05 .78 Upset -.04 .15 -.16 .09 .76
Shared Factor Loadings Irritable .00 .45 .17 .66 .12 Alert .58 -.12 .06 .40 -.02 Excited .60 .15 .13 -.42 -.11 ______
Note. n = 120. Items scored on the following response choices: 1 = very slightly, 2, 3, 4, 5 = extremely.
According to the APA manual means with the same subscripts may be used to denote significantly different means. This method of subscripting will be followed throughout the present study.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 48
Table 5
PANAS Factor Loadings for Varimax Orthogonal Five-Factor Solution ______
Factor Variance Item Loadings Eigenvalue Explained ______
Factor 1 Positive Affect 5.118 25.591 Interested .44 Inspired .82 Strong .74 Determined .81 Attentive .49 Enthusiastic .82 Active .75 Proud .85
Factor 2 Anxious 3.542 17.710 Nervous .58 Scared .80 Jittery .47 Afraid .78
Factor 3 Shame 1.439 7.197 Ashamed .84 Guilty .85
Factor 4 Antagonistic 1.293 6.466 Hostile .71
Factor 5 Troubled 1.084 5.418 Distressed .78 Upset .76
Shared Factor Loadings Irritable Alert Excited ______
Note. n = 120. Items scored on the following response choices: 1 = very slightly, 2, 3, 4, 5 = extremely.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 49
Scree Plot 6
5
4
3
Eigenvalue 2
1
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Component Number
Figure 5. Scree plot of eigenvalues for PANAS.
Analysis of Factorial Design: A Cautionary Note
Data collection spanned over two semesters, creating the possibility of confounding variables from the time spans between the two samples was considered. In order to determine this a 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) 3 X (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on manipulation check dependent variable procedural fairness. There was a significant main effect for Group F (1, 96) = 12.288, p <
.001, h2 = .113 revealing that Group 1 (Fall semester) (M = 4.547, SD = 2.351) was significantly different from Group 2 (Spring semester) (M = 3.444, SD = 2.273). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 20 in Appendix D. All other data are presented in
Table 21 in Appendix D. In order to control the possible influence of this of time between the samples, the two groups were handled as a covariate (Agresti & Finlay, 1997; Aron &
Aron, 2003; Gay & Airasian, 2003). Therefore, influences of Gender, Justification and
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 50
Procedure on the dependent variables were examined using general linear model-based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
Manipulation Checks
Procedural fairness. According to procedural justice theory, procedural fairness is significantly correlated with procedural justice (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988;
Musante el al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978; Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Blader, 2000;
Walker et al., 1974). The manipulation checks for procedural fairness (see Table 2), a 2
(Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA was conducted. Higher scores reflect greater procedural fairness perceptions with the procedure. Overall means and standard deviation are presented in Table 32 in Appendix D. There was a significant main effect for Gender F (1, 107) = 4.531, p < .03, h2 = .041, indicating that males (M = 4.566, SD
= 2.381) perceived the procedure fairer than females (M = 3.866, SD = 2.332). There was also a significant main effect for Justification F (1, 107) = 17.739, p < .001, h2 = .142, indicating that respondents in the National Science Foundation (NSF) (M = 5.000, SD =
2.209) condition perceived the procedure fairer than those in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) (M = 3.433, SD = 2.287) condition.
Lastly, at the main effect level, there was a significant main effect for Procedure F (2,
107) = 4.452, p < .01, h2 = .077. A look at the means suggests variability between respondents in the White American’s Participating (WAO) condition and the White
American’s Observing (WAO) condition and the Control group condition. A pairwise comparison least significant difference (LSD) test F (2, 116) = 3.455, p < .03, h2 = .056 revealed that respondents in the White American’s Participating (WAP) (M = 4.625, SD =
2.393) condition and the White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 4.525, SD = 2.541)
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 51 condition perceived the procedure fairer than the Control group (M = 3.500, SD = 2.050) condition. These means and standard deviations are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Procedural Fairness Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect
______
Procedure M SD
______
WAP 4.625a 2.393
WAO 4.525b 2.541
Control 3.500ab 2.050
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (pairwise comparison LSD).
Item scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
There was an interaction effect with Gender X Justification approaching significance
F (1, 107) = 3.137, p < .07, h2 = .028. A look at the means for this interaction suggests that one source of the interaction is variability among males in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) condition and the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 7.562, p < .007, h2 = .066 revealed that males (M = 5.633, SD =
2.125) in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition perceived the procedure fairer than females (M = 4.366, SD = 2.141) in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition.
A simple effects test F (1,107) = 17.877, p < .001, h2 = .143 revealed that males (M = 5.633,
SD = 2.125) in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition perceived the procedure
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 52 fairer than males (M = 3.500, SD = 2.161) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition. The means and standard deviations for this interaction are presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Procedural Fairness Gender X Justification Interaction Means and Standard Deviations
______
Gender Justification
______
DHS NSF
Female 3.366 (2.434) 4.366a (2.141)
Male 3.500b (2.161) 5.633ab (2.125)
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Item scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
There was a significant interaction effect with Gender X Justification X Procedure F
(2, 107) = 4.845, p < .01, h2 = .083. A look at the means for this interaction suggests that one source of the interaction is variability among females and males in the White American’s
Participating (WAP) condition and among males in the White American’s Observing (WAO) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 4.528, p < .03, h2 = .041 revealed that females
(M = 5.200, SD = 2.043) in the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s
Participating (WAP) condition perceived the procedure fairer than females (M = 3.400, SD =
2.674) in the Department of Homeland Security White American’s Participating (WAP) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 10.130, p < .002, h2 = .086 revealed that males
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 53
(M = 6.400, SD = 1.349) in National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s
Participating (WAP) condition perceived the procedure fairer than males (M = 3.500, SD =
2.173) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s Participating
(WAP) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 12.626, p < .001, h2 = .010 revealed that males (M = 6.600, SD = 3.500) in the National Foundation Science (NSF) White American’s
Observing (WAO) condition perceived the procedure fairer than males (M = 3.500, SD =
2.273) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s Observing (WAO) condition. The means and standard deviations for this interaction are presented in Table 8.
This is represented in Figure 6. All other data are presented in Table 34 in Appendix D.
Table 8
Procedural Fairness Means and Standard Deviations for Gender X Justification X
Procedure
______
Justification Gender Procedure
______
WAP WAO Control
Female 3.400a (2.674) 4.400 (2.633) 2.300 (2.442) DHS Male 3.500b (2.173) 3.500c (2.273) 3.500 (2.273)
Female 5.200a (2.943) 3.600 (2.547) 4.300 (1.636) NSF Male 6.400b (1.349) 6.600c (1.577) 3.900 (2.282) ______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Item scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 54
Procedural Fairness Female
Gender X Justification X Procedure 5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
Means JUSTIFICATION 3.0 DHS 2.5 2.0 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE .
Procedural Fairness Male
Gender X Justification X Procedure 8
7
6
JUSTIFICATION
Means 5
4 DHS
3 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Figure 6. Procedural Fairness Gender X Justification X Procedure interaction.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 55
Procedural Satisfaction. Procedural justice has been highly correlated with satisfaction with the procedure. (Houlden et al., 1978, LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler,
1988; Musante el al., 1983; Roberson, Moye, & Locke, 1999; Simon & Roberson, 2003;
Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978; Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Walker et al., 1974). A 2
(Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) X 2 Gender ANCOVA was conducted on
Procedural Satisfaction (see Table 2). Higher scores reflect greater satisfaction with the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table 33 in Appendix D.
There was a significant main effect for Gender F (1, 107) = 4.330, p < .04, h2 = .039 indicating males (M = 5.400, SD = 1.842) were more satisfied with the procedure than females (M = 4.733, SD = 2.238). There was a significant main effect for Justification F (1,
107) = 7.464, p < .007, h2 = .065 indicating that respondents in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) (M = 5.550, SD = 1.826) condition were more satisfied with the procedure than those in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (M = 4.583, SD = 2.196) condition.
Finally, there was a significant interaction Gender X Justification F (1, 107) = 3.948, p < .04, h2 = .036. A look at the means suggest that one source of the interaction is variability between females and males in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition.
A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 11.130, p < .001, h2 = .094 revealed that males (M = 6.200,
SD = 1.297) in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition were more satisfied with the procedure than females (M = 4.900, SD = 2.056) in the National Science Foundation
(NSF) condition (see Table 9). There was a ns difference between females (M = 4.566, SD =
2.430) and males (M = 4.600, SD = 1.975) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition. This is represented in Figure 7.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 56
Table 9
Procedural Satisfaction Gender X Justification Interaction Means and Standard Deviations
______
Gender Justification
______
DHS NSF
Female 4.566 (2.430) 4.900a (2.056)
Male 4.600 (1.975) 6.200a (1.297)
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Item scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
There were no other significant interactions. All other data are presented in Table 35 in Appendix D. These data suggest the manipulation checks were successful.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 57
Procedural Satisfaction Gender X Justification 6.5
6.0
5.5
Means 5.0 GENDER
4.5 Female
4.0 Male DHS NSF
JUSTIFICATION
Figure 7. Procedural Satisfaction Gender X Justification interaction.
Hypothesis Testing
The factor analysis of the Dimensional Voice items produced five general dependent variable clusters. They were General Fairness, True Voice, Misvoice, Forced Voice and
Accuracy.
General Fairness. Hypothesis 1 states, participants involved in a procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership will evaluate the procedure as more unfair than a control group. A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA was conducted on Factor 1 General Fairness (see Table 2). Higher scores reflect greater general fairness with the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations presented in Table 22 in
Appendix D. There was a significant main effect for Justification F (1, 107) = 10.574, p <
.002, h2 = .090 indicating that respondents perceived the procedure to be generally more fair
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 58 in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Justification (M = 5.988, SD = 1.904) than those in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Justification (M = 4.705, SD = 2.473).
No other effects were statistically significant: Gender was F (1, 107) = 2.087, p < .15, h2 = .019; Procedure was F (2, 107) = 2.074, p < .13, h2 = .037; Gender X Justification interaction F (1, 107) = 1.048, p < .30, h2 = .010; Justification X Procedure interaction F (2,
108) = 2.010, p < .13, h2 = .036. All other interaction effects were F < 1. All other data are presented in Table 41 in Appendix D.
True Voice. Hypothesis 2 states, participants involved in the White American’s
Observing (WAO) procedure will perceive more True Voice than the White American’s
Participating (WAP) or the Control group. A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure)
X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA was conducted on Factor 2 True Voice (see Table 2). Higher scores reflect greater perceptions of True Voice with the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table 23 in Appendix D. The main effect for Justification approached significance F (1, 107) = 3.373, p < .06, h2 = .031 revealing that respondents in the National Science Foundation (NSF) (M = 3.738, SD = 1.917) condition perceived the procedure to provide more True Voice compared to those in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) (M = 3.105, SD = 1.891) condition.
There was a significant main effect for Procedure F (2, 107) = 3.037, p < .05, h2 =
.054. A look at the means suggest variability between the White American’s Observing
(WAO) and the Control group condition. A pairwise comparison least significant difference
(LSD) test F (2, 116) = 2.969, p < .05, h2 = .049 revealed that respondents in the White
American’s Observing (WAO)(M = 3.758, SD = 2.329) condition perceived the procedure to provide more True Voice than in the Control group (M = 2.850, SD = 1.517) condition.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 59
There was a ns difference between the White American’s Participating (WAP) (M = 3.658,
SD = 1.745) procedure and the White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 3.758, SD =
2.329) procedure or with the Control (M = 2.850, SD = 1.922) procedure. These means and standard deviations are presented in Table 10.
Table 10
True Voice Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect
______
Procedure M SD
______
WAP 3.658 1.745
WAO 3.758a 2.329
Control 2.850a 1.922
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 (pairwise comparison LSD).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
There was no significant main effect for Gender F (1,107) = 1.651, p < .20, h2 = .015.
The interaction effects for Gender X Justification approached significance F (1, 107)
= 3.593, p < .06, h2 = .032. A look at the means of this interaction suggests that one source of the interaction is variability between females and males in the National Science Foundation
(NSF) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 6.965, p < .01, h2 = .061 revealed that males (M = 4.255, SD = 1.993) in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition perceived more True Voice in the procedure than females (M = 3.222, SD = 1.718) in the
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 60
National Science Foundation (NSF) condition. There was a ns difference between females
(M = 3.211, SD = 1.792) and males (M = 3.000, SD = 2.009) Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) condition. The means and standard deviations for this interaction are presented in Table 11. This is represented in Figure 8. All other interaction effects were F <
1. All other data are presented in Table 42 in Appendix D.
Table 11
True Voice Gender X Justification Interaction Means and Standard Deviations
______
Gender Justification
______
DHS NSF
Female 3.211 (1.792) 3.222a (1.718)
Male 3.000 (2.009) 4.255a (1.993)
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 61
True Voice Gender X Justification 4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6 Means 3.4 GENDER 3.2 Female 3.0 2.8 Male DHS NSF
JUSTIFICATION
Figure 8. True Voice Gender X Justification interaction.
Misvoice. Hypothesis 3 states, participants involved in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) justification will perceive a procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership to lead to Misvoice compared to the National Science Foundation (NSF) or
Control group. A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA was conducted Factor 3 Misvoice (see Table 2). Higher scores reflect greater perceptions of
Misvoice within the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table
24 in Appendix D. There was a significant main effect for Justification F (1, 107) = 16.146, p
< .001, h2 = .131 indicating that respondents in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
(M = 5.205, SD = 1.910) condition perceived more Misvoice than those in the National
Science Foundation (NSF) (M = 3.938, SD = 1.656) condition.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 62
There was a significant main effect for Procedure F (2, 107) = 5.154, p < .007, h2 =
.088. A look at the means suggest a difference between the White American’s Participating
(WAP), the White American’s Observing (WAO) and the Control group condition. A pairwise comparison least significant difference (LSD) test F (2, 116) = 4.669, p < .01, h2 =
.075 revealed that respondents in the White American’s Participating (WAP) (M = 4.783, SD
= 1.908) condition perceived the procedure to provide more Misvoice than respondents in the
White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 3.925, SD = 1.812) condition and respondents in the Control group (M = 4.572, SD = 1.890) condition perceived the procedure to provide more Misvoice than did those in the White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 3.925, SD =
1.812) condition. These means and standard deviations are presented in Table 12.
Table 12
Misvoice Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect
______
Procedure M SD
______
WAP 4.783a 1.908
WAO 3.925ab 1.812
Control 4.572b 1.890
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (pairwise comparison LSD).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 63
The interaction effects were not statistically significant for Justification X Procedure
F (2, 107) = 1.733, p < .18, h2 = .031. All other interaction effects were F < 1. All other data are presented in Table 43 in Appendix D.
Forced Voice. Hypothesis 4 states, participants involved in a procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership will perceive the White American’s Participating and
White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure to lead to Forced Voice more so than the
Control group. A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA was conducted on Factor 4 Forced Voice (see Table 2). Higher scores reflect greater perceptions of Forced Voice with the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in
Table 25 in Appendix D. There was a significant main effect for Gender F (1, 107) = 4.007, p
< .05, h2 = .036 indicating that males (M = 7.783, SD = 1.068) perceived more Forced Voice in the procedure than did females (M = 7.329, SD = 1.537).
The ns main effect for Procedure was F (2, 107) = 1.942, p < 14, h2 = .035. All other main effects and interaction effects were F < 1. All other data are presented in Table 44 in
Appendix D.
Positive and Negative Affect. Hypothesis 5 states, Participants involved in the
Department of Security (DHS) Justification White American’s Participating (WAP) procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership will result in negative affect more so than the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s Observing (WAO). A 2
(Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA was conducted on the subscales of the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Higher scores reflect more Positive Affect from the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table 27 in Appendix D. The Positive Affect subscale had a significant main
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 64 effect for Gender F (1, 107) = 6.844, p < .01, h2 = .060 indicating that males (M = 2.895, SD
= .908) perceived more Positive Affect than did females (M = 2.522, SD = .774).
The main effect for Procedure approached significance F (2, 107) = 2.614, p < .07, h2
= .047. A look at the means suggests no differences across procedure. A pairwise comparison least significant difference (LSD) test F (2, 116) = 2.409, p < .09, h2 = .040 revealed no significant differences across procedures. The means and standard deviations are presented in
Table 13.
Table 13
Positive Affect Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect
______
Procedure M SD
______
WAP 2.631 .825
WAO 2.925 .889
Control 2.571 .861
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (pairwise comparison LSD).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1 = very slightly, 2, 3, 4, 5 = extremely.
There were no other significant main effects or interactions. Justification and Gender
X Justification respectively were, F (1, 107) = 1.702, p < .19, h2 = .016 and F (1, 107) =
1.113, p < .29, h2 = .010. All other interaction effects were F < 1. All other data are presented in Table 36 in Appendix D.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 65
The NA Anxiety subscale revealed no significant main effects. Higher scores reflect more anxiety with the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in
Table 28 in Appendix D. There was a significant interaction of Gender X Justification X
Procedure F (2, 107) = 3.463, p < .03, h2 = .061. A look at the means suggest a difference among males across justification and procedure. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 6.133, p <
.01, h2 = .054 revealed that males in the National Science Foundation (NSF) White
American’s Participating (WAP) (M = 1.675, SD = .782) condition experienced more anxiety than males in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s Participating
(WAP) (M = 1.150, SD = .268) condition. A simple effects test F (2, 107) = 3.194, p < .04, h2 = .056 revealed that males in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White
American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 1.625, SD = .648) condition experienced more anxiety than males in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s Participating
(WAP) (M = 1.150, SD = .268) condition or the Control group (M =1.150, SD = .268) condition. The means and standard deviations for this interaction is presented in Table 14.
This interaction is represented in Figure 9. All other main effects and interactions were F < 1.
All other data are presented in Table 37 in Appendix D.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 66
Table 14
Anxiety Means and Standard Deviations for Gender X Justification X Procedure
______
Justification Gender Procedure
______
WAP WAO Control
Female 1.325 (.441) 1.300 (.404) 1.425 (.373) DHS Male 1.150ab (.268) 1.625bc (.648) 1.150c (.268)
Female 1.325 (.334) 1.600 (.614) 1.425 (.391) NSF Male 1.675a (.782) 1.400 (.428) 1.425 (.425) ______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1 = very slightly, 2, 3, 4, 5 = extremely.
Anxiety Female
Gender X Justification X Procedure 1.7
1.6
1.5
Means 1.4 JUSTIFICATION
1.3 DHS
1.2 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 67
Anxiety Male
Gender X Justification X Procedure 1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Means JUSTIFICATION 1.3 DHS 1.2 1.1 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Figure 9. Anxiety Gender (Female, n = 60, n = 60) X Justification X Procedure interaction.
The NA Shame subscale resulted in no significant main effect or interactions, with
Procedure F (2, 107) = 2.248, p < .11, h2 = .040 and Gender X Justification F (1, 107) =
1.012, p < .31, h2 = .009. All other main effects and interactions were F < 1. Higher scores reflect more feelings of shame from the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table 29 in Appendix D. All other data are presented in Table 38 in
Appendix D.
The NA Antagonistic subscale approached significance with Gender F (1, 107) =
3.004, p < .08, h2 = .027 indicating that males (M = 1.333, SD = .876) felt more feelings of antagonism than females (M = 1.110, SD = .354). All other main effects and interactions were F < 1. Higher scores reflect more feelings of antagonism from the procedure. Overall
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 68 means and standard deviations are presented in Table 30 in Appendix D. All other data are presented in Table 39 in Appendix D.
The NA Troubled subscale approached significance with Procedure F (2, 107) =
2.515, p < .08, h2 = .045. Higher scores reflect respondents feeling more troubled from the procedure. Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table 31 in Appendix D.
A pairwise comparison least significant difference (LSD) test F (2, 116) = 2.514, p < .08, h2
= .042 revealed that respondents in the White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 1.600, SD
= .735) condition were more troubled than those in the White American’s Participating
(WAP) (M = 1.300, SD = .435) condition. There was a ns difference between the White
American’s Participation (WAP) (M = 1.300, SD = .435) procedure and the Control (M =
1.500, SD = .586) group procedure or between the White American’s Observing (WAO)(M
=1.600, SD = .735) and the Control (M = 1.500, SD = .586) group procedure. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 15. All other main effects were F < 1.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 69
Table 15
Troubled Means and Standard Deviations for Procedure Main Effect
______
Procedure M SD
______
WAP 1.300a .435
WAO 1.600a .735
Control 1.500 .586
______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (pairwise comparison LSD).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1 = very slightly, 2, 3, 4, 5 = extremely.
An interaction effect approached significance for Gender X Justification X Procedure
F (2, 107) = 2.750, p < .06, h2 = .049. A look at the means suggest more variability among females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition than with males in the National
Science Foundation (NSF) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 3.014, p < .08, h2 =
.027 revealed that females in National Science Foundation (NSF) Control group (M = 1.650,
SD = .529) condition were more troubled than males in the National Science Foundation
(NSF) Control group (M = 1.250, SD = .353) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) =
4.260, p < .04, h2 = .038 revealed that females in the National Science Foundation (NSF)
White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 1.850, SD = .883) condition were more troubled than females in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s Observing
(WAO) (M = 1.400, SD = .614) condition. A simple effects test F (2, 107) = 6.070, p < .003, h2 = .101 revealed that females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Control group (M
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 70
= 1.650, SD = .529) condition were more troubled than females in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) White American’s Participating (WAP) (M = 1.050, SD = .1588) condition, while females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s
Observing (WAO) (M = 1.850, SD = .883) condition were more troubled than females in the
National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s Participating (WAP) (M = 1.050, SD
= .158) condition. The means and standard deviations for this interaction are presented in
Table 16. This interaction is represented in Figure 10. All other data are presented in Table
40 in Appendix D.
Table 16
Troubled Means and Standard Deviations for Gender X Justification X Procedure
______
Justification Gender Procedure
______
WAP WAO Control
Female 1.500 (.527) 1.400b (.614) 1.550 (.497) DHS Male 1.300 (.349) 1.550 (.761) 1.550 (.643)
Female 1.050cd (.334) 1.850bd (.883) 1.650ac (.529) NSF Male 1.350 (.529) 1.600 (.699) 1.250a (.353) ______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1 = very slightly, 2, 3, 4, 5 = extremely.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 71
Troubled Female
Gender X Justificaton X Procedure 2.0
1.8
1.6
Means 1.4 JUSTIFICATION
1.2 DHS
1.0 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Troubled Male
Gender X Justfication X Procedure 1.7
1.6
1.5
Means 1.4 JUSTIFICATION
1.3 DHS
1.2 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Figure 10. Troubled Gender (Female, n = 60, Male, n = 60) X Justification X Procedure interaction.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 72
Hypothesis 6 states, Participants in the National Science Foundation (NSF) justification condition will perceive the procedure fairer than participants in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) justification condition. These data and results were covered in
Manipulation Checks for Procedural Fairness.
Subsidiary Analyses
Accuracy. According to Leventhal (1980), procedures are perceived to be unfair if decisions appear to be made based on inaccurate information (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler &
Lind, 1992). To the extent that procedures assure that decisions will be based on accurate information procedural fairness will be enhanced. A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) X 3
(Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANOVA was conducted on Accuracy (see Table 2). Higher scores reflect respondents feeling more accuracy in the information they provided in the procedure.
Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table 26 in Appendix D. There was a significant main effect for Gender F (1, 107) = 7.761, p < .01, h2 = .068 indicating that males
(M = 7.650, SD = 1.176) felt greater accuracy in the information they provided than did females (M = 6.933, SD = 1.725). There were no other significant main effects with F < 1.
There was a significant interaction effect for Justification X Procedure F (2, 107) =
4.244, p < .01, h2 = .073. A look at the means suggests one source of the interaction is variability within the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition across procedure. A simple effects test F (1, 107) = 7.106, p < .009, h2 = .062 revealed that respondents in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Control group (M = 7.800, SD = 1.196) condition felt more accurate in the information they provided than those in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) Control group (M = 6.600, SD = 1.698) condition. A simple effects test F
(2, 107) = 2.878, p < .06, h2 = .051 revealed that respondents in the National Science
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 73
Foundation (NSF) White American’s Observing (WAO)(M = 7.550, SD = 1.050) condition felt more accurate in the information they provided than in the National Science Foundation
(NSF) Control group (M = 6.660, SD = 1.698) condition. The means and standard deviations for the Justification X Procedure interaction are presented in Table 17. This is represented in
Figure 11.
Table 17
Accuracy Justification X Procedure Interaction Means and Standard Deviations
______
Justification Procedure ______
WAP WAO Control
DHS 6.950 (1.843) 7.350 (1.565) 7.800a (1.196)
NSF 7.500 (1.432) 7.550b (1.050) 6.660ab (1.698) ______Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 74
Accuracy Justification X Procedure 8.0
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2 Means 7.0 JUSTIFICATION 6.8 DHS 6.6 6.4 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Figure 11. Accuracy Justification X Procedure interaction.
Finally, there was a significant Gender X Justification X Procedure interaction F (2,
107) = 3.052, p < .05, h2 = .054. A look at the means suggest great variability among female in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 107) =
14.350, p < .001, h2 = .118 revealed that males in the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Control group (M = 7.800, SD = 1.229) condition felt more accurate in the information they provided than females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Control group (M = 5.400,
SD = 1.173) condition. A simple effects test F (2, 107) = 6.971, p < .001, h2 = .115 revealed that females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s Participating
(WAP) (M = 7.500, SD = 1.269) condition felt more accurate in the information they provided than females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Control group (M = 5.400,
SD = 1.173) condition. The means and standard deviation for this interaction are presented
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 75 in Table 18. This is represented in Figure 12.All other data are presented in Table 45 in
Appendix D.
Table 18
Accuracy Gender X Justification X Procedure Interaction Means and Standard Deviations
______
Justification Gender Procedure
______
WAP WAO Control
Female 6.400 (2.170) 7.300 (1.946) 7.600 (1.349) DHS Male 7.500 (1.354) 7.400 (1.173) 8.000 (1.054)
Female 7.500b (1.429) 7.400 (1.429) 5.400ab (1.173) NSF Male 7.500 (1.649) 7.700 (.483) 7.800a (1.229) ______
Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 76
Accuracy Female
Gender X Justification X Procedure 8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
Means JUSTIFICATION 6.0 DHS 5.5
5.0 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Accuracy Male
Gender X Justification X Procedure 8.2
8.0
7.8
Means 7.6 JUSTIFICATION
7.4 DHS
7.2 NSF WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Figure 12. Accuracy Gender X Justification X Procedure interaction.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 77
No other interactions were significant with Gender X Procedure F (2, 107) = 1.813, p < .16, h2 = .033.
Procedural Process Control. Procedural process control or freedom to provide one’s opinion are perceived to be fair as compared to a procedure that does not provide freedom
(LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante el al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975,
1978; Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Walker et al., 1974). Higher scores reflect greater process control in the procedure. Procedural Process Control (see Table 2) means and standard deviations are presented in Table 46 in Appendix D. A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification)
3 X (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA resulted in a significant main effect for Gender F
(1, 107) = 11.777, p < .001, h2 = .099 indicating that males (M = 5.933, SD = 2.489) perceived more process control within the procedure to provide information than females (M
= 4.450, SD =2.382). There were no other significant main or interaction effects. All other data are presented in Table 49 in Appendix D.
Procedural Agreement. Agreement with a procedure is related to satisfaction with a procedure and suggests that the procedure will be perceived as fair (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind
& Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1978; Walker et al., 1974). Higher scores reflect more agreement with the procedure. Procedural Agreement (see Table 2) means and standard deviation are presented in Table 47 in Appendix D. A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) 3 X
(Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA resulted in a significant main effect for Justification F
(1, 107) = 13.608, p < .001, h2 = .113 indicating that respondents in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) (M = 6.366, SD = 1.803) condition agreed more with the procedure than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (M = 4.866, SD = 2.560) condition. There
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 78 were no other significant main or interaction effects. All other data are presented in Table 50 in Appendix D.
Procedural Information Control. Procedural information control or the notion that a decision will be made on information provided by the disputant is perceived to be fair
(LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1978; Walker et al., 1974).
Higher scores reflect greater information control in the procedure. Procedural Information
Control (see Table 2) means and standard deviation are presented in Table 48 in Appendix D.
A 2 (Group) X 2 (Justification) 3 X (Procedure) X 2 (Gender) ANCOVA resulted in no significant main effects. There was an interaction effect approaching significance for Gender
X Procedure F (2, 107) = 2.953, p < .056, h2 = .052. A look at the means of this interactions suggests that one source of the interaction is variability between females and males in the
White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure. A simple effects test F (1, 112) = 4.828, p <
.03, h2 = .041 revealed that males in the White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 6.300,
SD = 2.202) condition perceived more control with information they provided in the procedure than females in the White American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 4.950, SD = 2.459) condition. A simple effects test F (1, 112) = 3.067, p < .05, h2 = .052 revealed that females in the White American’s Participating (WAP) (M = 6.500, SD = 1.877) condition perceived more control with information they provided in the procedure than females in the White
American’s Observing (WAO) (M = 4.950, SD = 2.459) condition. The means and standard deviations for this interaction are presented in Table 19. This interaction is represented in
Figure 13.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 79
Table 19
Procedural Information Control Gender X Procedure Interaction Means and Standard
Deviations
______
Gender Procedure ______
WAP WAO Control
Female 6.500b (1.877) 4.950ab (2.459) 5.250 (1.943)
Male 5.800 (1.908) 6.300a (2.202) 6.300 (1.976) ______Note. Means with the same subscript differ at the p < .05 level (simple effects test).
Items scored on the following response choices: 1= Not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = A Great
Extent.
Procedural Information Control Gender X Procedure 7.0
6.5
6.0
Means 5.5 GENDER
5.0 Female
4.5 Male WAP WAO Control
PROCEDURE
Figure 13. Procedural Information Control Gender X Procedure interaction.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 80
There were no other significant interaction effects. All other data are presented in Table 51 in Appendix D.
Previous research suggests a positive relationship between fairness, accuracy, procedural process control, procedural agreement, procedural information control, and satisfaction with the procedures (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988 Thibaut & Walker,
1978; Thibaut et al., 1974). The results of the present study support this notion. Results of a
Pearson Product Moment correlation are presented in Table 52 in Appendix D.
Discussion
Three points arise from the results of this study of the factors that might influence the perceived fairness of a procedure that is designed to validate a person’s ethnic group membership: (1) type of procedure used has an effect on procedural and general fairness; (2) procedural justification has an effect on perceptions of fairness of the ethnic validation procedure; and (3) gender has an effect on perceptions of general fairness across justification and procedure.
To fully understand these results let’s revisit the theory of procedure (LaTour et al.,
1976; Thibaut & Walker, 1978; Thibaut et al., 1974), which explains both situational and psychological reactions to conflict resolution. The procedure used in this study can be conceptualized as an adversarial procedure, in which disputants have an opportunity to explain and support their case before a disinterested third party decision-maker (LaTour et al., 1976). Previous research suggests that people prefer this type of procedure when the conflict is a material conflict of interest (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut &
Walker, 1978; Walker et al., 1974). In the present study, the opportunity to explain and support their case was varied in three ways; participants actively participated in the
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 81 procedure, participants observed how the procedure would be carried out, and in the control group, participants were not exposed to any specific information about how the procedure would be carried out.
One major feature of the theory of procedure is the idea of outcome correspondence
(LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959;
Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). A relationship is correspondent or noncorrespondent depending on how outcomes can be distributed to participants. In a correspondent relationship, the ultimate outcomes of the participants are in harmony in that all participants share in any gains or losses, they share a common fate without competition (LaTour et al.,
1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). In a noncorrespondent relationship, the outcomes are setup such that when one participant wins, another loses, and their interests are opposed.
In the present study, the manipulation of the justifications, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) may be viewed as a manipulation of the nature of the conflict. On the one hand, the National Science Foundation
(NSF) is a correspondent relationship where the nature of the conflict is considered
“cognitive” and noncompetitive in the search for “truth” (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler,
1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Participants in a correspondent relationship conflict have a common interest in reaching the “best” or “correct” decision. In the search for truth, the issue is not about whether the decision may not be in their favor, because the outcome is along the nature of informational, not having a material impact on their lives. On the other hand, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a noncorrespondent relationship where the nature of the conflict is considered a “material”
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 82 conflict of interest and competitive in the search for intergroup “justice” (LaTour et al., 1976;
Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Participants in a noncorrespondent relationship conflict will perceive risk of high costs to be incurred from the decision. In the search for justice, a decision in a material conflict of interest not in their favor could have profound implications for them personally with far reaching implications on a larger scale. So in our case, participants in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition may perceive the procedure as science in the search for truth, whereas, participants in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition may perceive the procedure as a search for justice in which they may lose, possibly being told they are not “True White
Americans.” So the procedural justice context for this study included a manipulation of type of procedure and the nature of the conflict to which the procedure was applied.
Hypotheses
For continuity purposes, Hypothesis 1 and 6 will be discussed together since they both pertain to perceptions of fairness.
Hypothesis 1. Participants involved in a procedure designed to validate one’s ethnic membership will evaluate the procedure as more unfair than those in a control group.
The results indicate no support for Hypothesis 1. There was no difference on procedural fairness between the procedures. There was a difference between justifications on general fairness of the procedures. Respondents in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition (M = 5.988, SD = 1.904) did perceive the procedures as fairer than those in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition (M = 4.705, SD = 2.473). One possible explanation for this finding is the nature of the conflict. Again, the National Science
Foundation (NSF) condition can be viewed as a cognitive conflict seeking truth (LaTour et
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 83 al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). In that context, respondents viewed these procedures as unfair, but given the nature of the rationale for the procedures, the seeking of truth through scientific research, respondents viewed this explanation as more acceptable.
Satisfaction with procedures has been shown to be highly correlated with perceptions of fairness of procedures (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983;
Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Subsidiary analyses showed a gender effect. For this result, one way to look at the effects of gender is through Carol Gilligan’s (1982) ideas about the “ethic of care” and the “ethic of justice.” The ethic of care model states that female’s moral reasoning are more concerned with relationships, responsibility and to care about other’s well being. Females tend to have a relational bias that focuses on the consequences of decisions and actions for individual suffering and hurt (Furby, 1986; Jaffe & Hyde, 2000;
Skoe, Pratt, Matthews, & Curror, 1996). The ethic of justice idea is that males give priority to autonomy and objectivity, respect for the rights of others, equal and fair treatment regardless of what the specific consequences might mean for the individuals concerned (Furby, 1986;
Jaffe & Hyde, 2000; Skoe et al., 1996).
The results indicated a main effect for gender. Males were more satisfied with procedures than were females. One possible explanation could be the difference between the ethic of care for females and the ethic of justice for males. If one assumes that males felt very strongly this conflict to be a matter of justice, striving for equity regardless of the specific consequences of the decision would explain this finding (Furby, 1986; Jaffe & Hyde,
2000; Skoe et al., 1996). Females on the other hand, oriented from the ethic of care perspective might find a more relational approach should be explored to reach a decision.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 84
Consistent with that reasoning, there was also an interaction effect where males in the
National Science Foundation (NSF) condition were more satisfied with the procedures than were females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition. So males appear to have perceived this to be a correspondent noncompetitive cognitive conflict in the search for truth where the threat of loss was minuscule more so than did females. Males may have viewed these procedures acceptable in the realm of science for pure informational purposes as opposed to an arena where people may be harmed or hurt.
Hypothesis 6. Participants in the National Science Foundation (NSF) justification condition will perceive the procedure fairer than participants in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) justification condition.
The results suggest support for Hypothesis 6. Respondents in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) condition perceived the procedure to be fairer than those in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition. One possible explanation is the nature of the conflict. Again, the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition is a noncompetitive cognitive conflict in search for truth, while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition is a competitive material conflict of interest in search for justice (LaTour et al.,
1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Although, respondents evaluate the procedure to be unfair, the procedure is perceived fairer if it is a noncompetitive cognitive conflict where there is nothing “material” at stake, the search for truth, as opposed to a competitive material conflict of interest where respondents in the search for justice may be told whether their status as a “True White American” is valid.
Previous research has suggested that agreement with a procedure may be related to satisfaction with a procedure and suggests that an agreed with procedure will be perceived as
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 85 fair (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975,
1978). Subsidiary analyses showed that respondents in the National Science Foundation
(NSF) condition agreed with the procedures more so than did respondents in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition. Additionally, respondents in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) condition were more satisfied with the procedures than respondents in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition. This appears to support the notion that the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition is perceived as noncompetitive cognitive conflict where the perception of potential loss is small, while the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) condition is perceived as a competitive material conflict of interest where the perception of potential loss is greater.
Hypothesis 2. Participants in the White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure condition will perceive more True Voice than those in the White American’s Participating
(WAP) condition or the Control group.
Consistent with the hypothesis, the White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure was viewed to provide more True Voice than either the White American’s Participating
(WAP) procedure or the Control group procedure. True Voice exists in a procedure where respondents believes the information they are providing is (1) not distorted in any way
(accurate and relevant to the decision being made), and (2) the information conveyed is voluntary (Bane, 1994, 1999). For respondents in the White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure, it seems that simply reading about a procedure creates some distance between individuals and the procedure, relaxing evaluations of True Voice.
Subsidiary analyses on the accuracy of the information suggest that respondents in both the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s Participating (WAP) and the
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 86
White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure perceived the information they provided to be more accurate than respondents in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Control group procedure. Again, the nature of the conflict suggests that those in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure is a correspondent cognitive conflict in the search for truth (LaTour et al., 1976; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Musante et al., 1983; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). According to Bane
(1994, 1999), if respondents believe the information they provide is voluntary, relevant and accurate, then evaluations of True Voice may be made. In contrast, respondents in the unknown Control group procedure lacked information that this was an opportunity to provide relevant and accurate information.
There was also an interaction effect of gender and justification on responses about
True Voice. Males in the National Science Foundation (NSF) (M = 4.255, SD = 1.993) condition perceived more opportunity to provide True Voice than females (M = 3.222, SD =
1.718) in that same condition. Again, the difference between the “ethic of care” and the
“ethic of justice” as outlined by Gilligan (1982) may be relevant. Based on this idea and the observed pattern of means, males are oriented through a different lens than females in their search for justice having different standards for evaluating justice. Males in the National
Science Foundation (NSF) condition, in their search for justice may view knowledge, which the National Science Foundation (NSF) represents, as abstract, general and universalistic
(Furby, 1986). Females on the other hand, may view the search of justice in more concrete and particularistic reasoning, which Gilligan (1982) maintains is more typical of females.
According to Furby (1986), males view a more general approach to logical reasoning than the more specific consequences females may view of an action on particular people in a
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 87 particular situation. In this way, the procedure for males may be perceived as more viable, providing greater opportunity for True Voice in the procedure than females under the same conditions.
Hypothesis 3. Participants in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) justification condition will perceive the procedure to lead to Misvoice as compared to the
National Science Foundation (NSF) or Control group.
The results suggest support for Hypothesis 3. Misvoice means that respondents have an opportunity to provide information but they view this information to be distorted or irrelevant (Bane, 1994, 1999). Consistent with the hypothesis, respondents evaluated the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition to provide greater opportunity for
Misvoice than the National Science Foundation (NSF) condition. It seems that the nature of the conflict between correspondent (NSF) and noncorrespondent (DHS) conditions may create an environment where respondents view the information they provide to be distorted or perceived to be irrelevant to reach a satisfactory decision. The justification of a procedure as being necessary for security reasons may create a psychological environment in which respondents seek higher standards for evaluations of the procedure.
Within the procedures specifically, respondents perceived the White American’s
Participating (WAP) procedure to provide more Misvoice than the White American’s
Observing (WAO) procedure. Respondents actually experiencing the procedure, having their skulls measured in part to determine if they are True White American’s appear to view providing this information or allowing this procedure to occur to be a distortion of information relevant to their status as True White American’s.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 88
Additionally, respondents in the Control group condition perceived the procedure to provide more Misvoice than the White American’s Observing (WAO) condition. A look at the observed pattern of means for the Control group procedure suggests that this condition creates a feeling of ambiguity or the feeling that they are not being told the entire truth concerning the nature of the procedure. This “secret” procedure could be viewed as an
“apparent impropriety” within the procedure (Lind & Lissak, 1985). That is, respondents may view a secret procedure as an improper procedure, which counters their expectations, that the procedure will be enacted in a straightforward manner. Previous research testing procedural effects on fairness judgments used methods that would give respondents no reason to suspect that procedures were not conducted in an honest and competent manner
(Lind & Lissak, 1985). These straightforward methods typically are held constant, but in real-world situations where there is often variability in procedures, any suggestion of an inappropriate procedure may affect fairness evaluations.
An alternative explanation of respondents in the Control group procedure could be
Rawls’s (1971) “original position.” Rawls suggests that social justice results from fairness in the basic structure and procedures of society (Lind & Tyler, 1988). In other words, fair procedures or social structures are those that would be agreed to by an individual who was informed of the structure or procedure in question and who knew that they would occupy some position in the procedure, but would not know what that position would be. In the
Control group condition, respondents may adopt standards as if they were “behind the veil of ignorance” deprived of knowledge concerning the purpose of the procedure, in addition to their role within the conflict, which places individuals on an equal playing field (Furby,
1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Mitchell, Tetlock, Mellers, & Ordóñez, 1993; Thibaut et al.,
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 89
1974). From this position, respondents may evaluate the procedure more conservatively, not knowing in which direction the decision may fall.
Subsidiary analyses suggest the idea of the “original position” in that respondents in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (M = 7.800, SD = 1.196) Control group procedure perceived the information they provided as more accurate than respondents in the
National Science Foundation (NSF) (M = 6.600, SD = 1.698) Control group procedure. One explanation for this result may be that while in the other procedures respondents may have felt the information they provided was irrelevant for a proper decision to be made, thereby leading to Misvoice. Why would respondents in this condition appear to evaluate this condition contrary to other findings? Perhaps, respondents viewing the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Control group procedure “behind the veil of ignorance,” may sense the urgency and effort that people will hopefully work harder to insure security. When respondents in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Control group condition believe the information they provide is gathered or recorded accurately, the procedure will be evaluated only as Misvoice because the nature of this condition is unknown, evaluations of the information they provided may be deemed as irrelevant (Bane, 1994, 1999). According to Thibaut et al. (1974), respondents “behind the veil of ignorance” may view their disadvantaged condition more favorably considering the weight and implications for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condition as opposed to the National Science
Foundation (NSF) condition.
Hypothesis 4. Participants involved in a the White American’s Participating (WAP) and White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure conditions will to lead to evaluations of
Forced Voice more so than being in the Control group.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 90
The results suggest no support for Hypothesis 4. The only effect on Forced Voice was that males experienced pressure to provide their opinion or information more so than females. But even that result should be framed within the context of the means for this scale.
The scale ranged from 1-9 and the means for this finding were high for males (M = 7.783, SD
= 1.068) and for females (M = 7.329, SD = 1.537). Within this context all respondents perceived a high degree of Forced Voice. This apparent ceiling effect could also be an explanation why Forced Voice resulted in basically no differences by procedure. They all agreed to participate in the study without knowing the focus of the study. Once they learned the focus, they may have felt forced as in tricked. As for the gender difference, male respondents could have felt, in the procedure for White American’s Participating (WAP) that they were forced to allow the experimenter (also male) to invade their personal space by taking measurements of their skulls.
Hypothesis 5. Participants involved in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Justification, White American’s Participating (WAP) procedure will experience negative affect more so than those in the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s
Observing (WAO) procedure.
The results suggest support for Hypothesis 5. First, there was also an interaction effect of gender and justification. Males experienced more anxiety in the National Science
Foundation (NSF) White American’s Participating (WAP) condition than males in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s Participating (WAP) condition.
Males may view a study for scientific purposes alone not a sufficient response compared to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is perceived as more proactive.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 91
This pattern appears across procedures as well, where males in the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s Observing (WAO) condition experienced more anxiety than males in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) White American’s
Participating (WAP) condition or the Control group condition. Here the level of anxiety is greater when males are not actually participating in the procedure, but when they read of the procedure. Perhaps their need for justice is frustrated by a procedure that does not allow more voice through their direct participation.
In addition, males were found to experience higher levels of antagonism across all procedures than females. One possible explanation for this hostility could be that males objected more strongly to the suggestion that measurements of their skulls could determine
“True White Americanism.” In other words, “belief in a just world” and expectations concerning how the world works not being fulfilled could be a critical component toward perceptions of justice for males (Furby, 1986).
Respondents in the White American’s Observing (WAO) procedure felt more troubled than in either the White American’s Participating (WAP) procedure or the Control group procedure. It appears that respondents are more at ease if they are participating in the procedure, but experience a higher level of being troubled if they read about the procedure happening to others.
There was also an interaction of gender and justification with females experiencing a higher level of being troubled when in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Control group procedure than males in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Control group procedure.
One explanation for this finding could be the “secret procedure” analysis. Females more so than males may have felt at risk from a lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 92 procedure and their purpose within the procedure. Females operating in the ethic of care orientation with a relational bias and focusing on the consequences of the procedure could view this secret or hidden procedure as having the potential to be improper, resulting in their level of being troubled (Furby, 1986).
Additionally, females in the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s
Observing (WAO) procedure experienced higher levels of being troubled than females in either the National Science Foundation (NSF) White American’s Participating (WAP) or the
Control group procedure. It would appear that the ethic of care orientation is operating across the procedures. So females experienced a certain level of being troubled, but when they are observing the procedure they experience even higher levels of being troubled from their orientation concerning responsibility and care for the well being of others (Furby, 1986).
Finally, on the opposite end of the scale males experienced more feelings of positive affect than females. One possible explanation for this result is that males may believe that these procedures are an effort for justice. That would result in a higher positive affect.
Females on the other hand, may perceive these procedures to be uncaring possibly leading to harmful consequences.
Limitations
As with any experiment there exists the possibility that methodological limitations limit any conclusions drawn from the study. These issues involve the notions of internal and external validity (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979).
Internal Validity. As previously mentioned data collection was split between two consecutive semesters allowing for possible history effects to influence respondents perceptions on the dependent variables. One of the important inclusions of the study design
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 93 was the justification of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It would be fair to say that the mention of this agency generates various degrees of emotions and opinion concerning the creation and the function of this entity. Additionally, news media bombardment concerning 9/11, the War in Iraq, Al Quida, and the presidential campaigns may have influenced respondent’s opinions, which would reflect their evaluations of the procedures. Although, subjects were randomly assigned to these conditions, and historical effects were controlled for in the design of the analyses, future research should make attempts to complete data collection in as short a time period as possible in order to curtail possible history effects.
External Validity. One limitation concerning the generalizability of the findings was that the participants were college students reading scenarios about a procedure within both justifications. These findings would be more generalizable if the study was conducted within an actual agency, within a group where participants believed the procedures were actually being conducted. Another limitation that may reflect on the generalizability of the findings is that the respondents were all White college students. Researchers should investigate these procedures with members of a variety of ethnic groups in order to make the findings more generalizable.
Theoretical and Applied Implications
The present study adds to the work of Bane (1994) and the Dimensional Voice Model continuing to extend the work of Thibaut & Walker (1975, 1978) and their theory of procedure. The Dimensional Voice Model is based on the idea that respondents are concerned about the type of control within procedures. These findings support the basic premise of the model: respondents do not view all types of control within procedures equally.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 94
The Dimensional Voice Model provided a measure that confirmed the notion that respondents generally viewed procedures that are designed to validate one’s ethnic group membership as unfair. In order for individuals to view a procedure as fair, they must not only have the opportunity for input, but they must also believe that the information that they provide to be given freely, and that this information is accurate and relevant for a fair decision to be rendered. This is important for policy makers and organizations that may implement such procedures in their decision-making process.
Procedures that were perceived to provide True Voice were evaluated to be fairer and relevant to decisions than procedures perceived to rely on Forced Voice and Misvoice. True
Voice was seen in procedures that allowed respondents to observe these particular procedures, as opposed to actually participating. Procedures in which respondents participated were viewed as distorting the information they were providing. One might expect that respondents would perceive more True Voice while actually participating in the procedure. This may be explained by the nature of the conflict. The National Science
Foundation (NSF) condition is a correspondent cognitive conflict, while the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is a material conflict of interest. In other words, by participating in a procedure implementing this particular type of voice (measurement of skulls) may be evaluated as an irrelevant use of the information to reach a decision. Respondents appear to feel that the procedure has an ulterior motive, which may be perceived as improper (Bane,
1994). Lind & Lissak (1985) found that procedures that exhibit the simplest appearance of impropriety might affect perceptions of fairness.
The present study did not create exactly Rawls (1971) “original position,” but there were similar elements. Respondents in the Control group condition had a very limited degree
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 95 of information concerning the procedure that could lead to a decision that could affect them personally. Thibaut et al. (1974) found that individuals who are not aware of their role in a conflict adopted a perspective that led them to prefer procedures “that they believed to favor the disadvantaged while tending to preserve equal access to channels of information and to mechanisms of control” (pp. 1288-1289). Respondents in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) condition felt the information they provided to be more accurate in the
Control group condition although the information concerning the procedure itself was ambiguous. In other words, having very little information concerning the nature of the procedure and its purpose, respondents may have evaluated the procedure more in terms of its overall purpose, Homeland Security.
Social Exclusion Theory. Social exclusion theory was the guide to test the effects of an ethnic validation procedure on positive and negative affect with its dependent variable clusters. The notion that a procedure exists that claims simple physical measurements may determine an individual’s ethnic group membership did create specific mood changes of negative affect. It would appear that these procedures where a decision could exclude respondents from their ethnic group created a degree of anxiety that is consistent with social exclusion theory (Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Leary, 1990; Twenge & Campbell, 2003; Van
Beest et al., 2003; Van Prooijen et al., 2002; Van Prooijen et al., 2004).
Justifications. It is important to note that this is one of the first studies to implement and test the notion of justifications a priori, before the procedure as the rationale for the procedure. Recent studies by Schmidt, Houston, Bettencourt and Boughton (2003) and
Skarlicki et al. (2004) suggest a no-justification procedure and a justification given concurrently, respectively with a decision is evaluated as unfair. It appears that justifications
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 96 in place as the rationale for a procedure, that is, procedural justification focuses an individual’s attention on certain information making that information more salient, thereby framing the procedure in a certain light (Brotheridge, 2003). From the observed patterns, justifications implemented in this manner affected perceptions of fairness. According to Bies
(1987a, 1987b, 1989), justifications in the traditional sense give evidence that the decision- makers acted in an impartial and unbiased manner. Even for a negative decision, a justification should be positively associated with perceptions of procedural fairness.
Following this line of reasoning, placing the justification before the procedure as its rationale, may in this case create biases based on respondents’ preconceived notions of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The Example Case: Lumbee Federal Recognition. Finally, the results are relevant to issues surrounding the example case, Lumbee Federal Recognition. Indeed, the results suggest that the social psychological dynamics of procedures designed to validate ethnic membership in a group are likely to be perceived as unfair. The results of this study show:
(1) procedures that involve providing information that are perceived irrelevant to the decision are evaluated as unfair; (2) procedures that create ambiguous conditions are evaluated as unfair; and (3) procedures that are justified with a condition that may include elements of material risks are evaluated as unfair.
Having established these points it is important to consider other implications of these procedures. For example, the implementation of procedures could create an environment of within-group competition (Nacoste, 1994). Group competition for limited resources created by such a procedure could result in intragroup tensions resulting in splits within the ethnic community (Gastil, 1990; O’Connor, Gruenfeld, & McGrath, 1993; Phinney, 1990, 1992,
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 97
2003; Sider, 1993, 2003). At the beginning of their book on procedural justice Thibaut &
Walker (1975) (as cited in Tyler & Lind, 1992, p. 136) state:
One prediction that can be advanced with sure confidence is that human life on this
planet faces a steady increase in the potential for interpersonal and intergroup
conflict. The rising expectations of a continuously more numerous population in
competition for control over rapidly diminishing resources create the conditions for
an increasingly dangerous existence. It seems clear that the quality of future human
life is likely to be importantly determined by the effectiveness with which disputes
can be managed, moderated, or resolved. Procedures or methods that may be put to
this task of conflict resolution therefore claim our attention. (p. 1)
Such conflicts over resource allocations may be intensified by the efforts of the traditionally disadvantaged groups, African Americans, American Indians and women to secure policies to correct historical injustices, thereby creating intergroup tensions (Tyler & Lind, 1992).
The impact of Federal Recognition procedures among American Indian tribes, including the Lumbee affects these communities psychologically, socially, culturally, politically, and economically. Such procedures create an environment for decisions to be made on particularistic criteria, factors that are not achievable through effort or performance.
Such factors could include those one is born with such as ethnicity; weight, hair and eye color. On the other hand, universalistic criteria are factors that are achievable through effort and performance such as gaining an education and work experience (Nacoste, 1993, 1994).
Ethnic validation procedures rely heavily on particularistic criteria, in this case physical measurements of the human skull, factors not achievable through performance. As long as procedures of this type place greater weight on particularistic criteria in order to receive
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 98 competitive resources, tribal members may continue to view such policies and agencies with skepticism with the sense that something improper is occurring. How proper is it to have a people go through a long exhaustive procedure that questions their existence in history based on physical characteristics that are highly variable within any group? Essentially, these procedures on the surface are about recognition, but underneath in subtle ways are procedurally demeaning (Sider, 1993, 2003).
Long histories of abuse, of fear, of hope, and of struggle all filter through both relationships of respect and rage. Of these, respect is a more historically conscious element of certain histories, in recognition of each other’s histories in the context of a shared, larger history (Sider, 1993, 2003). According to social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978, 1981; Tyler &
Blader, 2000, 2003) an important function of groups is to provide people with a framework within which they construct a social identity. If this framework is denied, perhaps the positive aspects of an identity with their group are denied as well. This legal or legislative denial of their histories is in part, a significant component of what it means to be an
American Indian in the United States (Sider, 1993, 2003).
Implications for Future Research
This study yielded significant information concerning the types of voice people prefer, adding to the procedural justice literature. As stated earlier, this study was conducted on a student sample in a laboratory setting and may not be generalizable to other populations.
Future research should be conducted to determine the extent to which these results compare to a study conducted in an agency environment with a diverse sample of adults. An older cohort may with more diverse experiences be able to bring more depth to the study of these procedures.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 99
In order to determine the extent a priori justifications affect fairness evaluations of procedure, future research could design scenarios, which alone manipulate the justification without respondents actually participating. In the present study, participating or observing together with the justification affected the evaluation of the procedure. As stated previously, this is one of the first studies to implement justifications in this manner, therefore, it adds to the literature an examination of the influence of justifications for real-world procedures.
Future research should be conducted with members of various ethnic groups.
Members of ethnic groups have a great sense of pride and belonging to their social group combining both value and emotional significance attached by that membership (Brookins,
1996; Phinney, 1990, 1992, 2003; Tyler, 1989, 1990; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2002). It would be interesting to determine how members of various ethnic groups would evaluate procedures that attempt to validate their group membership. As with the example case, the Lumbee, other ethnic group members would be expected to evaluate these procedures similarly with some significant differences, based on their cultural differences between groups and history with government.
Conclusion
Overall, it is important to emphasize that this study supports the notion that Lumbee
Federal Recognition, as a procedure may be perceived as unfair. These procedures may create within American Indian communities a psychological environment of social exclusion in which American Indians may view with skepticism policy makers conducting such procedures. Therefore, if the goal of governmental policies with American Indian communities is a harmonious relationship, then another goal should be to design procedures that deal with recognition issues in a procedural way that does not alienate.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 100
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, (Vol.2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Alexander, S. & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 117-198.
Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar
questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 803-812.
Ambrose, M. L., Harland, L. K., & Kulik, C. T. (1991). Influence of social comparisons on
perceptions of organizational fairness [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76 (2), 239-246.
Aron, A. & Aron, E. N. (2003). Statistics for psychology (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Azzi, A. E. & Jost, J. T. (1997). Votes without power: Procedural justice as mutual
control in majority-minority relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27
(2), 124-155.
Bane, K. D. (1994). The dimensional voice model: Three dimensions of voice in
organizational procedures and their relationship to perceived fairness.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Bane, K. D. (1999). Effects of type of voice on perceptions of fairness in performance
evaluation [Electronic version]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 101
(1), 75-89.
Barton, L. (1967). The most ironic story in American history. Associated Printing Corp.
Charlotte, N.C.
Baumeister, R. F. & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 9 (2), 165-195.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M. & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on
cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (4), 817-827.
Beugre, C. D. & Baron, R. A. (2001). Perceptions of systemic justice: The effects of
distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31 (2) 324-339.
Bies, R. J. (1987a). Beyond “voice”: The influence of decision-maker justification and
sincerity on procedural fairness judgments. Representative Research in Social
Psychology, 17, (1), 3-14.
Bies, R. J. (1987b). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289-319.
Bies, R. J. (1989). Managing conflict before it happens: The role of accounts. In M.A.
Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 83-91). New
York: Praeger Publishers.
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 Negioiations in Organizations (Vol. 1), 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J. & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 102
casual accounts [Electronic version]. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.
Bies, R. J. & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on
procedural fairness judgments [Electronic version]. Academy of Management
Journal, 31 (3), 676-685.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing
organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it’s not my fault [Electronic version]?
Communication Research, 15, 381-399.
Blader, S. L., Chang, C. & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Procedural justice and retaliation in
organizations: Comparing cross-nationally the importance of fair group processes
[Electronic version]. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12 (4), 295-
311.
Blu, K. (1979a). Race and ethnicity-changing symbols of dominance and hierarchy in the
United States. Anthropology Quarterly, 52 (2), pp. 77-85.
Blu, K. (1979b). The uses of history for ethnic identity: The Lumbee case. In R.
Hinshaw (Ed.) Currents in Anthropology: Essays in honor of Sol Tax. Mouton
Publisher. New York.
Bobocel, D. R. & Farrell, A. C. (1996). Sex-based promotion decisions and Interactional
fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts [Electronic version].
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 22-35.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M. & Chen, Z.
X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirlkand, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001).
Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to
voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (4), 300-315.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 103
Brookins, C. (1996). Promoting ethnic identity development in African American youth:
The role of rites of passage. Journal of Black Psychology, 22 (3), 388-417.
Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). The role of fairness in mediating the effects of voice and
justification on stress and other outcomes in a climate of organizational change.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10, (3), 253-268.
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Clay-Warner, J. (2001). Perceiving procedural justice: The effects of group membership
and status [Electronic version]. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64 (3). 224-238.
Cohen, R. L. & Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In J.
Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior. New
York: Academic Press.
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues
for field studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Coser, L. A. (1956). Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, IL.: The Free Press.
Daly, J. P. (1995). Explaining changes to employees: The influence of justifications and
change outcomes on employee’s fairness judgments [Electronic version]. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 31 (4), 415-428.
Dial, A. L. (1993). The Lumbee. Indians of North America series. New York: Chelsea
House.
Dial, A. L., and Eliades, D. K. (1996). The Only Land I Know: A History of the Lumbee
Indians. San Francisco, CA: Indian Historian Press, 1975.
Ebreo, A., Linn, N. & Vining, J. (1996). The impact of procedural justice on opinions of
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 104
public policy: Solid waste management as an example. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26 (14), 1259-1285.
Egloff, B., Schmukle, S. C., Burns, L., Kohlmann, C. W. & Hock, M. (2003). Facets of
dynamic positive affect: Differentiating joy, interest, and activation in the
positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85 (3), 528-540.
Evans, W. McKee. (1971). To Die Game: The Story of the Lowry Band Indian Guerrillas
of Reconstruction. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1971.
Evans, W. McKee (1979). The North Carolina Lumbees: From assimilation to
revitalization. In Southeastern Indians Since the Removal Era, W. W. Williams
(Ed.), University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp. 49-71.
Folger, R. & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Forrest, K. D. (2002). Voiceless: The effects of unfair procedures on recipients and
observers in small groups [Electronic version]. Current Research in Social
Psychology, 8 (5), 62-84.
Forsyth, D. R. (1997). Orienting model of the function of groups. In The Function of
Groups. Retrieved from http://www.vcu.edu/hasweb/group/function.htlm
#bigfive.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2004). What good are
positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following
the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (2), 365-376.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 105
Furby, L. (1986). Psychology and justice. In R. Cohen (Ed.), Justice: Views from the
Social Sciences, (pp. 153-194). New York: Academic Press.
Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research (7th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Gastil, J. (1993). Identifying obstacles to small group democracy. Small Group
Research, 24, 5-27.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and woman’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing
and understanding data (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2), 340-342.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the
means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.
Greenberg, J. & Folger, R. G. (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-Verlag.
Harrison, W. & McCallum, J. R. (1983). Interdependence theory. In H. H. Blumberg, A.
P. Hare, V. Kent & M. Davies (Eds.), Small Groups and Social Interaction, 2,
(pp. 413-428). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W. F., & Gilbert, D. (1996). The other side of affirmative
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 106
action: Reactions of nonbeneficiaries to sex-based preferential selection. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81 (4), 346-357.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Houlden, P., LaTour, S, Walker, L. & Thibaut, J. (1978). Preferences for modes of
disputes resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 13-30.
Huffman, C. & Cain, L. B. (2001). Adjustments in performance measures: Distributive
and procedural justice effects on outcome satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing,
18 (6), 593-615.
Immigration Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2003, from
http://www.immigrationguide.com/citiq.htm.
Jaffe, S. & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis
[Electronic version]. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (5), 703-726.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of
interdependence. New York. Wiley.
Kessler, T. & Mummendey, A. (2001). Is there any scapegoats around? Determinants of
intergroup conflicts at different categorization levels. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81 (6), 1090-1102.
Knick, S. (Curator, Native American Resource Center, UNC-P). (1997, November 23).
Lumbee: The People of the Dark Water. WRAL TV 5, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 107
Knick, S. (2001). Because it is right. Retrieved March 19, 2002 from
http://www.uncp.edu/nativemuseum/right.html.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization and theory and
research (pp. 347-480). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and
accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 63, 355-356.
LaTour, S. Houlden, P. Walker, L. & Thibaut, J. (1976). Some determinants of
preference for modes of conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20,
319-356.
Leary, M. R. (1990). Response to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,
depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9
(2), 221-229.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approached to the
study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research, (p. 27-55). New York:
Plenum Press.
Leung, K. & Lind, E. A. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture,
gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 1134-1140.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R. & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control and procedural justice:
Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 108
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
Lind, E. A. & Lissak, R. I. (1985). Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness
judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 19-29.
Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New
York: Plenum Press.
MacMillan, H. (1888). Sir Walter Raleigh’s Lost Colony. Advance Press: Wilson.
Makkai, T. & Braithwaite, J. (1996). Procedural justice and regulatory compliance. Law
and Human Behavior, 20, (1), 83-98.
McPherson, O. H. (1915). Indians of North Carolina. 63rd U. S. Congress, Document
677; U. S. Government Printing Office; Washington.
Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Ordóñez, L. D. (1993). Judgments of social
justice: Compromises between equality and efficiency. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, (4), 629-636.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (6), 845-855.
Musante, L. Gilbert, M. A. & Thibaut, J. (1983). The effects of control on perceived
fairness of procedures and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
19, 223-238.
Nacoste, R. W. (1987). But do they care about fairness?: The dynamics of preferential
treatment and minority interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 177-
185.
Nacoste, R. B. (1990). Sources of stigma: Analyzing the psychology of affirmative
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 109
action. Law & Policy, 12 (2), 175-195.
Nacoste, R. B. (1993). Procedural justice and preferential treatment: A brief review and
comment. Current Psychology: Research and Review, 12, (3), 230-235.
Nacoste, R. B. (1994). If empowerment is the goal . . .: Affirmative action and social
interaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 87-112.
Nacoste, R. B. (1996). Social psychology and the affirmative action debate. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 15 (3), 261-282.
Nacoste, R. W. & Hummels, B. (1994). Affirmative action and the behavior of decision
makers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, (7), 595-613.
O’Connor, K. M, Gruenfeld, D. H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). The experience and effects
of conflict in continuing working groups. Small Group Research, 24, 362-382.
Organ, D. W. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship
behavior: What are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6, 5-18.
Peña, Y. & Sidanius, J. (2002). U. S. Patriotism and ideologies of group dominance: A
tale of aysmmetry [Electronic version]. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (6),
782-790.
Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group
adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), 499-514.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with
diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 171-183.
Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista,
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 110
& G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied
research, (pp. 63-81). American Psychological Association. Washington.
Phinney, J. S. & Alipuria, L. L. (1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four
ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 171-183.
Phinney, J. S. & Chavira, V. (1992). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: An exploratory
longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 271-281.
Phinney, J. S., Chavira, V., & Tate, J. (1993). The effect of ethnic threat on ethnic self-
concept and own-group ratings. Journal of Social Psychology, 133 (4), 469-478.
Ployhart, R. E. & Ryan, A. M. (1998). Applicant’s reactions to the fairness of selection
procedures: The effects of positive violations and time measurement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 1, 3-16. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from the PsycArticles
database.
Ployhart, R. E., Ryan, A. M., & Bennett, M. (1999). Explanations for selection
Decisions: Applicants’ reactions to informational and sensitivity features of
explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, (1), 87-106. Retrieved March 20,
2003, from the PsycArticles database.
Price, K. H., Hall, T. W., Van den Bos, K., Hunton, J. E., Lovett, S., & Tippett, M. J.
(2001). Features of the value function for voice and their consistency across
participants from four countries: Great Britian, Mexico, The Netherlands, and the
United States. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84 (1),
95-121.
Rasinski, K. A. (1992). Preferences for decision control in organizational decision-
making. Social Justice Research, 5, 343-357.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 111
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Roberson, Q. M., Moye, N. A, & Locke, E. (1999). Identifying a missing link between
participation and satisfaction: The mediating role of procedural justice perceptions
[Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (4), 585-593.
Rosenbaum, B. L. (1973). Attitude toward invasion of privacy in the personnel selection
process and job applicant demographic and personality correlates. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 58 (3), 333-338.
Rosenburg, M. (1986). Conceiving the self. Melbourne, Fl.: Krieger.
Rotheram, M. J. & Phinney, J. S. (1987). Introduction: Definitions and perspectives in
the study of children’s ethnic socialization. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram
(Eds.), Children’s Ethnic Socialization: Pluralism and Development (pp. 10-28).
Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
Schroth, H. A. & Shah, P. P. (2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An
examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 462-471.
Schmidt, M. A., Houston, M. B., Bettencourt, L. A. & Boughton, P. D. (2003). The impact of
voice and justification on student’s perceptions of professor’ fairness. Journal of
Marketing Education, 25, (2), 177-186.
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E, & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic
review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3),
444-458.
Sider, G. M. (1993). Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in
Southern United States. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 112
Sider, G. M. (2003). Living Indian Histories: Lumbee and Tuscarora People in North
Carolina. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill.
Simon, T. & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of
aggregate justice perceptions on organization outcomes [Electronic version]. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88 (3), 432-443.
Skarlicki, D. P. & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive. Procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82 (3), 434-443.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts backfire: The
exacerbating effects of a polite message or an apology on reactions to an unfair
outcome. [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, (2), 322-
341.
Skoe, E. E, Pratt, M. W., Matthews, M., & Curror, S. E. (1996). The ethic of care: Stability
over time, gender differences, and correlates in mid-to late adulthood [Electronic
version]. Psychology and Aging, 11 (2), 280-292.
Sousa, F. H. & Vala, J. (2002). Relational justice in organizations: The group-value
model and support for change. Social Justice Research, 15 (2), 99-121.
Starr, G. E. (1994). The Lumbee Indians. An "Annotated Bibliography with Chronology
and Index", Jefferson, N.C., McFarland & Company, 1994.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. New York: Minority Rights
Group.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. Turner & H. Giles (Eds).
Intergroup Behavior, (p.144-167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 113
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations, American Review of
Psychology, 33, 1-39.
Tata, J. (2000a). Differences between Caucasian and Hispanic undergraduates in
emphasis on distributive, procedural, and interactional justice [Electronic
version]. Psychological Reports, 87, 151-155.
Tata, J. (2000b). Influence of role and gender on the use of distributive versus procedural
justice principles [Electronic version]. The Journal of Psychology, 134 (3), 261-
268.
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R. & Costa, Jr., P. T. (2003). Factorial and construct
validity of the Italian positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS) [Electronic
version]. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19 (2), 131-141.
Thibaut, J. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis.
Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66,
541-556.
Thibaut, J., Walker, L., LaTour, S. & Houlden, P. (1974). Procedural justice as fairness.
Stanford Law Review, 26, 1271-1289.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M. & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join
them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior [Electronic
version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 1058-1069.
Twenge, J. M. & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn’t fun to get the respect that we’re going
to deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression [Electronic version].
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 114
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (2), 261-272.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social exclusion causes self-
defeating behavior [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83 (3), 606-615.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (5), 830-838.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
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.
Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social
Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be
better that others to feel good about ourselves [Electronic version]?
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 813-838.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group
procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model
[Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (5), 913-930.
Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances In Experimental Social Psychology 25, 115-191. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. & Griffin, E. (1986). Alternative images of the citizen:
Implications for public policy. American Psychologist, 41, 970-978.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 115
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A. & McGraw, K. M. (1985). The influence of perceived
injustice on the endorsement of political leaders. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 15, 700-725.
Van Beest, I., Wilke, H., & Van Dijk, E. (2003). The excluded player in coalition
formation [Electronic version]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
(2), 237-247.
Van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice
procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect [Electronic version].
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560-577.
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience
on reactions to perceived procedural fairness [Electronic version]. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (6), 931-941.
Van den Bos K. & Meidema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why fairness matters:
The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness [Electronic
version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (3), 355-366.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H .A. M. & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural
fairness? The role of trust in authority [Electronic version]. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (6), 1149-1458.
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R, & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive
justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next
[Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, (1), 95-104.
Van den Bos, K. & Lind, E. A. (2001). The psychology of own verses others’ treatment:
Self-oriented and other–oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 116
[Electronic version]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (10), 1324-
1333.
Van Prooijen, J., Van den Bos, K. & Wilke, H. A. M. (2002). Procedural justice and
status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects [Electronic
version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1353-1361.
Van Prooijen, L, Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). Group belongingness and
procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of
voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, (1), 66-79.
Walker, L, LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and
observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4,
295-310.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive affect and negative affect: The PANAS scales [Electronic
version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1063-1070.
Wilkins, D. E. (1993). Breaking into the intergovernmental matrix: The Lumbee tribe's
efforts to secure federal acknowledgment. Publis: The Journal of Federalism,
23, 123-142.
Wilkins, D. E. (2002). American Indian politics and the American political system.
Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, Inc. New York.
Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance.
The Journal of Psychology, 133 (2), 183-193.
Wolfram, W., Dannenburg, C., Knick, S. & Oxendine, L. (2002). Fine in the world:
Lumbee language in time and place. North Carolina State University. Raleigh.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 117
Footnotes
1Throughout this study the term American Indian or Indian will be used to indicate indigenous peoples of North America. The term Native American is incorrect in that all peoples born on the American continent could be considered Native American (Wilkins,
2002).
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 118
Appendices
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 119
Appendix A
Informed Consent Form
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 120
Informed Consent Form
The following information is provided to help you decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. You should be aware that you are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time without affecting your relationship with this
Department or the University.
The purpose of this study is to assess how people react to different kinds of evaluative procedures.
Data will be collected using a brief series of questionnaires. The data from the questionnaires will be the only data collected in the study.
Do not hesitate to ask questions about the study before participating or during the study. I would be happy to share the findings with you after the research is completed. Your name will not be associated with the research findings in any way, and only the researchers will know your identity.
There are no known risks and/or discomforts associated with this study. The expected benefits associated with your participation are the information that you provide in the study.
Please sign this consent form. You are signing it with full knowledge of the nature and purpose of the procedures.
______
Signature Date
Age:______Sex:______Ethnicity:______
David Oxendine, UNCP (910) 521-6324 [email protected]
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 121
Appendix B
Scenarios
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 122
Department of Homeland Security
White American’s Participating (WAP)
Scenario (Experimental Group 1)
As a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on America, the Bush Administration and the
United States Government in cooperation with several government intelligence agencies including the FBI, the CIA and the newly formed Department of Homeland Security have begun extensive research on how to identify people from different ethnic groups. This university is one of five universities in the United States to be included in this research project. Since this study is a national security matter, you will be asked to sign a secrecy clause.
Your participation in this research is very important. Nothing less than the security of our nation is at stake in this new age of terrorism. We have to find ways to know who is from what groups to protect ourselves.
As one of five universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true White Americans. The other universities will be working on other groups. We need your help. You will be asked to participate in a series of examinations and tests. We are using research from government scientists and experts. Based on this research, certain physical attributes have been shown to determine individuals who are true White
Americans. Some of these examinations will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such tasks as measuring your head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your permission will be required for these procedures. You will then be asked to take a series of questionnaires. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
Please answer the Americanism Questionnaire now.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 123
Please STOP now and signal to the experimenter that you are ready to be measured if you agree to do so. First, please sign below allowing your permission.
I agree to allow the experimenter to make measurements of my head including its circumference.
Please sign yes______Date______
After being measured, please complete the questionnaires.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 124
Department of Homeland Security
White American’s Observing (WAO)
Scenario (Experimental Group 2)
You are asked to read the following scenario from a current research project. Please put yourself in this situation. After reading the scenario you will be asked to answer several questionnaires asking for your reactions to the research. What follows is the scenario:
As a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on America, the Bush Administration and the
United States Government in cooperation with several government intelligence agencies including the FBI, the CIA and the newly formed Department of Homeland Security have begun extensive research on how to identify people from different ethnic groups. This university is one of five universities on the east coast to be included in this research project.
Since this study is a national security matter, you will be asked to sign a secrecy clause.
Your participation in this research is very important. Nothing less than the security of our nation is at stake in this new age of terrorism. We have to find ways to know who is from what groups to protect ourselves.
As one of five universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true White Americans. The other universities will be working on other groups. We need your help. You will be asked to participate in a series of examinations and tests. We are using research from government scientists and experts. Based on this research, certain physical attributes have been shown to determine individuals who are true White
Americans. Some of these examinations will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such tasks as measuring your head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your permission will be required for these procedures. You will then be asked to take a series of
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 125 questionnaires. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for reading the scenario. Please take the time to answer the following questionnaires. Thank you again for your time.
Please answer the Americanism Questionnaire now.
Then complete the other questionnaires.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 126
Department of Homeland Security
Control
Scenario (Control Group)
You are asked to read the following scenario from a current research project. Please put yourself in this situation. After reading the scenario you will be asked to answer several questionnaires asking for your reactions to the research. What follows is the scenario:
As a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on America, the Bush Administration and the
United States Government in cooperation with several government intelligence agencies including the FBI, the CIA and the newly formed Department of Homeland Security have begun extensive research on how to identify degrees of Americanism. This university is one of five universities in the United States to be included in this research project. Since this study is a national security matter, you will be asked to sign a secrecy clause.
Your participation in this research is very important. Nothing less than the security of our nation is at stake in this new age of terrorism. We have to find ways to know who is a patriot from other groups in order to protect ourselves.
As one of five universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true Americans. We need your help. We are using research from government scientists and experts. You will be asked to answer several questionnaires. You will then be asked to take a series of questionnaires asking your reflection of these scientific methods. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
Please answer the Americanism Questionnaire now.
Then complete the other questionnaires.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 127
National Science Foundation
White American’s Participating (WAP)
Scenario (Experimental Group 1)
With a grant provided by the National Science Foundation, extensive research continues on social groups and ethnicity. This research is charged to develop methods to better identify people from different ethnic groups based on physical attributes. This university is one of five universities in the United States to be included in this research project.
As one of five universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true White Americans. The other universities will be working on other groups. We need your help. We are using research from government scientists and experts.
You will be asked to participate in a series of examinations and tests. Based on this research, certain physical attributes have been shown to determine individuals who are true White
Americans. Some of these examinations will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such tasks as measuring your head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your permission will be required for these procedures. You will then be asked to take a series of questionnaires. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
Please answer the Americanism Questionnaire now.
Please STOP now and signal to the experimenter that you are ready to be measured if you agree to do so. First, please sign below allowing your permission.
I agree to allow the experimenter to make measurements of my head including its circumference. Then complete the other questionnaires.
Please sign yes______Date______
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 128
National Science Foundation
White American’s Observing (WAO)
Scenario (Experimental Group 2)
You are asked to read the following scenario from a current research project. Please put yourself in this situation. After reading the scenario you will be asked to answer several questionnaires asking for your reactions to the research. What follows is the scenario:
With a grant provided by the National Science Foundation, extensive research continues on social groups and ethnicity. This research is charged to develop methods to better identify people from different ethnic groups based on physical attributes. This university is one of five universities in the United States to be included in this research project.
As one of five universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true White Americans. The other universities will be working on other groups. We need your help. You will be asked to participate in a series of examinations and tests. We are using research from government scientists and experts. Based on this research, certain physical attributes have been shown to determine individuals who are true White
Americans. Some of these examinations will require you to be touched by the experimenter with such tasks as measuring your head, checking for cranial ridges and the like. Your permission will be required for these procedures. You will then be asked to take a series of questionnaires. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for reading the scenario. Please take the time to answer the following questionnaires. Thank you again for your time.
Please answer the Americanism Questionnaire now. Then complete the other questionnaires.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 129
National Science Foundation
Scenario (Control Group)
With a grant provided by the National Science Foundation, extensive research on
Americanism continues. This research is charged to develop methods to better identify degrees of Americanism. This university is one of five universities in the United States to be included in this research project.
As one of five universities, we have been assigned the task of developing a method to determine who are true Americans. We need your help. We are using research from government scientists and experts. You will be asked to answer several questionnaires. You will then be asked to take a series of questionnaires asking your reflection of these scientific methods. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
Please answer the Americanism Questionnaire now.
Then complete the other questionnaires.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 130
Appendix C
Measures
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 131
Americanism
Please answer the following questions to best of your ability. There is a series of questions that will determine your degree of Americanism.
1. How many stars are there in our flag?______
2. What do the stars on the flag mean? ______
3. What color are the stripes?______
4. How many states are there in the Union? ______
5. What is the date of Independence Day? ______
6. What country did we fight during the Revolutionary War? ______
7. Who is the President of the United States? ______
8. Who elects the President of the United States? ______
9. For how long do we elect the President? ______
10. Can the Constitution be changed? ______
11. How many changes or amendments are there to the Constitution? ______
12. What are the three branches of our government? ______
13. Who makes the laws in the United States? ______
14. What are the duties of the Congress? ______
15. How many senators are there in Congress? ______
16. For how long do we elect each senator? ______
17. For how long de we elect each representative? ______
18. What is the judiciary branch of our government? ______
19. What is the Supreme Court law of the United States? ______
20. What is the capital of your state? ______
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 132
This scale consists of a number of words that describe feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to the word. Indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, at this very moment. Use the following scale to record your answers.
1 2 3 4 5 very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely or not at all
______interested ______irritable ______distressed ______alert ______excited ______ashamed ______upset ______inspired ______strong ______nervous ______guilty ______determined ______scared ______attentive ______hostile ______jittery ______enthusiastic ______active ______proud ______afraid
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 133
Department of Homeland Security
Please answer the following questions based on the procedure you just experienced or read. Circle the number that best represents your opinion.
1. To what extent was the information you provided accurate? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
2. To what extent were you able to tell the experimenter your opinion about being an American? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
3. To what extent did you feel pressured into providing information during the procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
4. To what extent was the information concerning you relevant? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
5. To what extent did you agree with the procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
6. To what extent did you believe the information used in the procedure was irrelevant? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
7. To what extent was the information not related to your status as an American? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
8. To what extent did you have the opportunity to share your opinions? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 134
9. To what extent was the information you gave in the procedure provided voluntarily? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
10. To what extent would the decision be based on information provided by you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
11. To what extent did you feel forced to reveal your opinion to the experimenter? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
12. How willing would you have been to talk about your status as an American? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Willing Willing
13. How much input did you have in the procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None at A Great All Deal
14. How many opportunities did you have to tell your side of the story? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None At Many All Opportunities
15. How satisfied are you with this procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Satisfied
16. Using this procedure, how likely is it that a fair decision will be made? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Likely
17. In your opinion, how fair was this procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None at Extremely All Fair Fair
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 135
18. If you had been the experimenter, how fair would you have thought the procedure was? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None at Extremely All Fair Fair
19. How seriously do you take the Department of Homeland Security? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Seriously
20. Most people would say this procedure is fair. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree
21. Evaluation procedures can be used for a variety of reasons. The evaluation procedure you just experienced or learned about was set up to identify what?
a. Patriotism (1) b. True White Americanism (2) c. Ethnicity (3) d. Group Identity (4)
22. Gender: Female (1)______Male (2)______
23. Age:______
24. Race/Ethnicity
______African American/Black (1) ______American Indian/Native American (2) ______Asian American (3) ______Caucasian/White (4) ______Hispanic (5) ______Other (please specify:______) (6)
Additional comments:
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 136
National Science Foundation Grant
Please answer the following questions based on the procedure you just experienced or read. Circle the number that best represents your opinion.
1. To what extent was the information you provided accurate? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
2. To what extent were you able to tell the experimenter your opinion about being an American? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
3. To what extent did you feel pressured into providing information during the procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
4. To what extent was the information concerning you relevant? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
5. To what extent did you agree with the procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
6. To what extent did you believe the information used in the procedure was irrelevant? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
7. To what extent was the information not related to your status as an American? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
8. To what extent did you have the opportunity to share your opinions? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 137
9. To what extent was the information you gave in the procedure provided voluntarily? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
10. To what extent would the decision be based on information provided by you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
11. To what extent did you feel forced to reveal your opinion to the experimenter? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at A Great All Extent
12. How willing would you have been to talk about your status as an American? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Willing Willing
13. How much input did you have in the procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None at A Great All Deal
14. How many opportunities did you have to tell your side of the story? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None At Many All Opportunities
15. How satisfied are you with this procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Satisfied
16. Using this procedure, how likely is it that a fair decision will be made? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Likely
17. In your opinion, how fair was this procedure? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None at Extremely All Fair Fair
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 138
18. If you had been the experimenter, how fair would you have thought the procedure was? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 None at Extremely All Fair Fair
19. How seriously do you take the National Science Foundation Grant? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely All Seriously
20. Most people would say this procedure is fair. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree
21. Evaluation procedures can be used for a variety of reasons. The evaluation procedure you just experienced or learned about was set up to identify what?
a. Patriotism (1) b. True White Americanism (2) c. Ethnicity (3) d. Group Identity (4)
22. Gender: Female (1)______Male (2)______
23. Age:______
24. Race/Ethnicity
______African American/Black (1) ______American Indian/Native American (2) ______Asian American (3) ______Caucasian/White (4) ______Hispanic (5) ______Other (please specify:______) (6)
Additional comments:
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 139
Patriotism
1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree strongly disagree agree
______I have great love for the United States.
______I am proud to an American.
______I find the sight of the American flag very moving.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 140
Appendix D
Tables
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 141
Table 20
Procedural Fairness and Group Difference Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 3.40 2.67 3.50 2.17
White American’s Observing 4.40 2.63 3.50 2.27
Control 2.30 1.63 3.50 2.27
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 5.20 2.04 6.40 1.34
White American’s Observing 3.60 0.00 6.60 1.57
Control 4.30 1.63 3.90 2.28
______
Female Male
Gender 3.86 (2.33) 4.56 (2.38)
Justification (DHS) 3.43 (2.28) NSF 5.00 (2.20)
Procedure WAP 4.62 (2.39) WAO 4.52 (2.54) Control 3.50 (2.05)
Group 1 4.54 (2.35) 2 3.44 (2.27)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Procedural Fairness. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 142
Table 21
Procedural Fairness and Group Analysis of Variance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Gender 1 18.934 4.400** .039 .044
Justification 1 61.343 14.255**** .000 .129
Procedure 2 25.354 5.892*** .004 .109
Group 1 52.879 12.288**** .001 .113
Gender X Justification 1 20.910 4.859** .030 .048
Gender X Procedure 2 1.606 .373 .690 .008
Justification X Procedure 2 7.653 1.778 .174 .036
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 11.777 2.737* .070 .054
Gender X Group 1 1.169 .272 .603 .003
Justification X Group 1 .321 .074 .785 .001
Gender X Justification X Group 1 5.488 1.275 .262 .013
Procedure X Group 2 7.620 1.771 .176 .036
Gender X Procedure X Group 2 .163 .038 .963 .001
Justification X Procedure X Group 2 3.410 .792 .456 .016
Gender X Justification X
Procedure X Group 2 1.232 .286 .752 .006
Error 96 4.303
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* Approaching significance p < .05. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < 001.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 143
Table 22
Factor 1 General Fairness Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 4.56 3.38 4.60 2.34
White American’s Observing 5.20 2.66 4.83 2.06
Control 4.10 2.37 4.93 2.34
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 6.70 1.67 7.17 0.92
White American’s Observing 5.23 2.49 6.50 1.56
Control 4.77 2.02 5.57 1.59
______
Female Male
Gender 5.04 (2.18) 5.60 (2.02)
Justification (DHS) 4.70 (2.47) NSF 5.98 (1.90)
Procedure WAP 5.75 (2.48) WAO 5.44 (2.23) Control 4.84 (2.09)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of General Fairness. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 144
Table 23
Factor 2 True Voice Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 3.53 1.54 3.13 1.86
White American’s Observing 3.73 2.17 3.27 2.47
Control 2.37 1.80 2.60 1.78
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 3.67 1.83 4.30 1.79
White American’s Observing 3.53 2.16 4.50 2.67
Control 2.47 0.73 3.97 1.53
______
Female Male
Gender 3.21 (1.7) 3.62 (2.08)
Justification (DHS) 3.10 (1.89) NSF 3.73 (1.91)
Procedure WAP 3.65 (1.74) WAO 3.75 (2.32) Control 2.85 (1.51)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of True Voice. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 145
Table 24
Factor 3 Misvoice Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 5.43 2.28 5.53 1.49
White American’s Observing 4.03 1.98 4.33 1.84
Control 6.40 1.62 5.50 1.53
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 4.33 2.11 3.83 1.26
White American’s Observing 3.40 1.87 3.93 1.70
Control 4.07 1.83 4.07 1.56
______
Female Male
Gender 4.61 (2.13) 4.53(1.63)
Justification (DHS) 5.20 (1.91) NSF 3.93 (1.65)
Procedure WAP 4.78 (1.90) WAO 3.92 (1.81) Control 5.00 (1.81)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Misvoice. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 146
Table 25
Factor 4 Forced Voice Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 2.37 1.58 2.60 1.28
White American’s Observing 2.67 1.72 1.82 1.06
Control 3.07 2.34 2.40 1.51
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 2.33 0.79 2.03 0.67
White American’s Observing 2.52 1.02 1.97 0.85
Control 3.05 1.51 2.48 0.85
______
Female Male
Gender 7.32 (1.53) 7.78 (1.06)
Justification (DHS) 7.50 (1.60) NSF 7.60 (1.01)
Procedure WAP 7.66 (1.11) WAO 7.75 (1.21) Control 7.25 (1.60)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Forced Voice. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 147
Table 26
Factor 5 Accuracy Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 6.40 2.17 7.50 1.35
White American’s Observing 7.30 1.95 7.40 1.17
Control 7.60 1.34 8.00 1.05
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 7.50 1.27 7.50 1.65
White American’s Observing 7.40 1.43 7.70 0.48
Control 5.40 1.17 7.80 1.23
______
Female Male
Gender 6.93 (1.72) 7.65 (1.17)
Justification (DHS) 7.36 (1.57) NSF 7.21 (1.46)
Procedure WAP 7.22 (1.65) WAO 7.45 (1.31) Control 7.20 (1.57)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Accuracy. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 148
Table 27
Factor 1 PANAS Positive Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 2.40 0.72 2.57 0.92
White American’s Observing 2.70 0.95 3.07 0.89
Control 2.37 0.77 2.53 0.99
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 2.76 0.49 2.79 1.11
White American’s Observing 2.61 0.84 3.31 0.80
Control 2.28 0.86 3.08 0.57
______
Female Male
Gender 2.52 (.77) 2.89 (.90)
Justification (DHS) 2.61 (.87) NSF 2.80 (.84)
Procedure WAP 2.63 (.82) WAO 2.92 (.88) Control 2.57 (.84)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Positive Affect. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 149
Table 28
Factor 2 PANAS Anxiety Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.32 0.44 1.15 0.27
White American’s Observing 1.30 0.40 1.62 0.65
Control 1.42 0.37 1.15 0.27
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.32 0.33 1.67 0.78
White American’s Observing 1.60 0.61 1.40 0.43
Control 1.43 0.39 1.42 0.43
______
Female Male
Gender 1.40 (.42) 1.40 (.52)
Justification (DHS) 1.32 (.43) NSF 1.47 (.51)
Procedure WAP 1.36 (.51) WAO 1.48 (.53) Control 1.35 (.37)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Anxiety. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 150
Table 29
Factor 3 PANAS Shame Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.35 0.82 1.35 0.63
White American’s Observing 1.45 0.83 1.65 1.13
Control 1.15 0.71 1.25 0.35
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.15 0.24 1.35 0.54
White American’s Observing 1.80 1.35 1.45 0.68
Control 1.50 0.97 1.10 0.21
______
Female Male
Gender 1.40 (.85) 1.35 (.64)
Justification (DHS) 1.36 (.56) NSF 1.39 (.77)
Procedure WAP 1.30 (.56) WAO 1.58 (1.00) Control 1.25 (.75)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Shame. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 151
Table 30
Factor 4 PANAS Antagonistic Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.20 0.63 1.50 1.27
White American’s Observing 1.10 0.32 1.60 1.26
Control 1.00 0.00 1.10 0.32
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.10 0.32 1.40 0.97
White American’s Observing 1.20 0.42 1.10 0.32
Control 1.00 0.00 1.30 0.67
______
Female Male
Gender 1.10 (.35) 1.33 (.87)
Justification (DHS) 1.25 (.79) NSF 1.18 (.53)
Procedure WAP 1.30 (.85) WAO 1.25 (.37) Control 1.10 (.67)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degrees of Antagonistic affect. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 152
Table 31
Factor 5 PANAS Troubled Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.50 0.53 1.30 0.35
White American’s Observing 1.40 0.61 1.55 0.76
Control 1.55 0.48 1.55 0.64
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 1.05 0.16 1.35 0.53
White American’s Observing 1.85 0.88 1.60 0.70
Control 1.65 0.53 1.25 0.35
______
Female Male
Gender 1.50 (.60) 1.43 (.57)
Justification (DHS) 1.47 (.56) NSF 1.45 (.61)
Procedure WAP 1.30 (.43) WAO 1.60 (.73) Control 1.50 (.51)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Troubled. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 153
Table 32
Procedural Fairness Manipulation Check Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 3.40 2.67 3.50 2.17
White American’s Observing 4.40 2.63 3.50 2.27
Control 2.30 1.64 3.50 2.27
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 5.20 2.04 6.40 1.35
White American’s Observing 3.60 2.55 6.60 1.58
Control 4.30 1.65 3.90 2.28
______
Female Male
Gender 3.86 (2.33) 4.56 (2.38)
Justification (DHS) 3.43 (2.28) NSF 5.00 (2.20)
Procedure WAP 4.62 (2.39) WAO 4.52 (2.54) Control 3.50 (2.05)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Procedural Satisfaction. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 154
Table 33
Procedural Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 4.80 2.16 4.00 2.00
White American’s Observing 4.90 2.64 4.90 1.73
Control 4.00 2.16 4.90 2.23
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 5.60 2.17 6.80 1.23
White American’s Observing 4.60 2.32 6.30 1.16
Control 4.50 1.65 5.55 1.23
______
Female Male
Gender 4.73 (2.23) 5.40 (1.84)
Justification (DHS) 4.58 (2.189 NSF 5.50 (1.82)
Procedure WAP 5.30 (2.24) WAO 5.17 (2.07) Control 4.72 (1.88)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Procedural Satisfaction. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 155
Table 34
Procedural Fairness Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 48.050 11.576*** .001 .098
Gender 1 18.807 4.531* .036 .041
Justification 1 73.633 17.739*** .000 .142
Procedure 2 18.482 4.452* .014 .077
Gender X Justification 1 13.020 3.137 .079 .028
Gender X Procedure 2 1.886 .454 .636 .008
Justification X Procedure 2 5.494 1.324 .270 .024
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 20.112 4.845** .010 .083
Error 107 4.151
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < 001.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 156
Table 35
Procedural Satisfaction Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 27.934 7.438** .007 .065
Gender 1 16.263 4.330* .040 .039
Justification 1 28.033 7.464** .007 .065
Procedure 2 4.666 1.242 .293 .023
Gender X Justification 1 14.827 3.948* .049 .036
Gender X Procedure 2 1.770 .471 .626 .009
Justification X Procedure 2 5.899 1.571 .213 .029
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 2.258 .601 .550 .011
Error 107 3.756
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 157
Table 36
Factor 1 PANAS Positive Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 3.422 4.956 .028 .044
Gender 1 4.726 6.844** .010 .060
Justification 1 1.175 1.702 .195 .016
Procedure 2 1.805 2.614* .078 .047
Gender X Justification 1 .768 1.113 .294 .010
Gender X Procedure 2 .616 .892 .413 .016
Justification X Procedure 2 .164 .238 .789 .004
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .529 .766 .468 .014
Error 107 .690
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* Approaching significance p < .05. ** p < .01.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 158
Table 37
Factor 2 PANAS Anxiety Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 .099 .442 .508 .004
Gender 1 .000 .000 .999 .000
Justification 1 .638 2 .839 .095 .026
Procedure 2 .165 .733 .483 .014
Gender X Justification 1 .052 .229 .633 .002
Gender X Procedure 2 .144 .640 .529 .012
Justification X Procedure 2 .120 .533 .588 .010
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .778 3.463* .035 .061
Error 107 .225
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 159
Table 38
Factor 3 PANAS Shame Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 .003 .004 .947 .000
Gender 1 .050 .085 .771 .001
Justification 1 .019 .032 .858 .000
Procedure 2 1.318 2.248 .111 .040
Gender X Justification 1 .593 1.012 .317 .009
Gender X Procedure 2 .165 .281 .755 .005
Justification X Procedure 2 .118 .201 .818 .004
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .431 .736 .481 .014
Error 107 .586
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size. p < .05.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 160
Table 39
Factor 4 PANAS Antagonistic Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and
Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 2.514 5.641* .019 .050
Gender 1 1.339 3.004 .086 .027
Justification 1 .133 .299 .586 .003
Procedure 2 .371 .831 .438 .005
Gender X Justification 1 .232 .520 .472 .005
Gender X Procedure 2 .045 .100 .905 .002
Justification X Procedure 2 .220 .493 .612 .009
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .513 1.151 .320 .021
Error 107 .446
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 161
Table 40
Factor 5 PANAS Troubled Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 2.711 8.714** .004 .290
Gender 1 .236 .759 .385 .007
Justification 1 .008 .027 .870 .000
Procedure 2 .783 2.515* .086 .045
Gender X Justification 1 .156 .501 .480 .005
Gender X Procedure 2 .137 .440 .645 .008
Justification X Procedure 2 .635 2.042 .135 .037
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .856 2.750* .068 .049
Error 107 .311
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* Approaching significance p < .05. ** p < .01.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 162
Table 41
Factor 1 General Fairness Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 23.868 5.108* .026 .046
Gender 1 9.754 2.087 .151 .019
Justification 1 49.408 10.574** .002 .090
Procedure 2 9.689 2.074 .131 .037
Gender X Justification 1 4.896 1.048 .308 .010
Gender X Procedure 2 .674 .144 .866 .003
Justification X Procedure 2 9.390 2.010 .139 .036
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 2.366 .506 .604 .009
Error 107 4.673
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 163
Table 42
Factor 2 True Voice Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 6.017 1.687 .197 .016
Gender 1 5.891 1.651 .202 .015
Justification 1 12.033 3.373* .069 .031
Procedure 2 10.833 3.037** .052 .054
Gender X Justification 1 12.818 3.593* .061 .032
Gender X Procedure 2 1.419 .398 .673 .007
Justification X Procedure 2 .159 .044 .956 .001
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .228 .064 .938 .001
Error 107 3.567
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* Approaching significance p < .05. ** p < .05.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 164
Table 43
Factor 3 Misvoice Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of
Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 15.286 5.128* .026 .046
Gender 1 .510 .171 .680 .002
Justification 1 48.133 16.146*** .000 .131
Procedure 2 15.366 5.154** .007 .088
Gender X Justification 1 .038 .013 .910 .000
Gender X Procedure 2 1.479 .496 .610 .009
Justification X Procedure 2 5.165 1.733 .182 .031
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 1.002 .336 .715 .006
Error 107 2.981
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05. ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 165
Table 44
Factor 4 Forced Voice Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 6.379 3.592* .061 .032
Gender 1 7.117 4.007** .048 .036
Justification 1 .276 .155 .694 .001
Procedure 2 3.449 1.942 .149 .035
Gender X Justification 1 .090 .051 .822 .000
Gender X Procedure 2 1.413 .795 .454 .015
Justification X Procedure 2 .440 .248 .781 .005
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .259 .146 .864 .003
Error 107 1.776
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* Approaching significance p < .05. ** p < .05.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 166
Table 45
Factor 5 Accuracy Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction Effects of
Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 .478 .236 .628 .002
Gender 1 15.727 7.761** .006 .068
Justification 1 .675 .333 .565 .003
Procedure 2 .851 .420 .658 .008
Gender X Justification 1 1.108 .547 .461 .005
Gender X Procedure 2 3.674 1.813 .168 .033
Justification X Procedure 2 8.599 4.244* .017 .073
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 6.185 3.052* .051 .054
Error 107 2.026
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 167
Table 46
Procedural Process Control Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 4.10 1.97 5.40 2.55
White American’s Observing 5.10 2.42 6.40 2.32
Control 4.00 2.75 4.80 3.01
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 5.00 2.40 6.30 2.50
White American’s Observing 4.70 2.95 6.50 2.12
Control 3.80 1.93 6.20 2.53
______
Female Male
Gender 4.45 (2.43) 5.93 (2.48)
Justification (DHS) 4.96 (2.55) NSF 5.41 (2.52)
Procedure WAP 5.20 (2.40) WAO 5.60 (2.66) Control 4.70 (2.66)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Procedural Satisfaction. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 168
Table 47
Procedural Agreement Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and Gender as a
Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 4.00 2.75 4.80 2.57
White American’s Observing 5.70 2.58 5.00 2.58
Control 5.10 2.66 4.60 2.55
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 6.40 2.01 6.80 1.40
White American’s Observing 5.70 2.11 7.30 1.16
Control 5.70 2.41 6.30 1.25
______
Female Male
Gender 5.43 (2.45) 5.80 (2.20)
Justification (DHS) 4.86 (2.56) NSF 6.36 (1.80)
Procedure WAP 5.50 (2.44) WAO 5.92 (2.26) Control 5.42 (2.29)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Procedural Satisfaction. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 169
Table 48
Procedural Information Control Means and Standard Deviations for Justification and
Gender as a Function of Procedure
______
Department of Homeland Security
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 6.40 1.84 5.10 1.91
White American’s Observing 5.60 2.01 6.50 2.37
Control 5.30 2.36 6.40 2.50
______
National Science Foundation Grant
Gender Female Male
Procedure M SD M SD
______
White American’s Participating 6.60 2.01 6.50 1.72
White American’s Observing 4.30 2.79 6.10 2.13
Control 5.20 1.55 6.20 1.40
______
Female Male
Gender 5.56 (2.18) 6.13 (2.01)
Justification (DHS) 5.88 (2.16) NSF 5.81 (2.07)
Procedure WAP 6.15 (1.90) WAO 5.62 (2.40) Control 5.77 (2.00)
______
Note. The higher the score, the greater the degree of Procedural Satisfaction. n = 120.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 170
Table 49
Procedural Process Control Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 18.050 3.028 .085 .028
Gender 1 70.867 11.777* .001 .099
Justification 1 6.075 1.010 .317 .009
Procedure 2 11.593 1.927 .151 .035
Gender X Justification 1 4.963 .825 .366 .008
Gender X Procedure 2 .309 .051 .950 .001
Justification X Procedure 2 3.393 .564 .571 .010
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 2.160 .359 .699 .007
Error 107 6.018
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .001.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 171
Table 50
Procedural Agreement Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and Interaction
Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 12.655 2.551 .113 .509
Gender 1 5.135 1.035 .311 .010
Justification 1 67.500 13.608* .000 .113
Procedure 2 3.973 .801 .452 .015
Gender X Justification 1 8.967 1.808 .182 .017
Gender X Procedure 2 1.011 .204 .816 .004
Justification X Procedure 2 4.061 .819 .444 .015
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 5.578 1.125 .329 .024
Error 107 4.960
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .0001.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 172
Table 51
Procedural Information Control Analysis of Covariance Results for Main Effect and
Interaction Effects of Gender, Justification and Procedure
______
Source df MS F p h2
______
Group 1 11.387 2.658 .106 .024
Gender 1 11.189 2.612 .109 .024
Justification 1 .133 .031 .860 .000
Procedure 2 2.434 .568 .568 .011
Gender X Justification 1 4.287 1.001 .319 .009
Gender X Procedure 2 12.649 2.953* .056 .052
Justification X Procedure 2 7.421 1.732 .182 .031
Gender X Justification X Procedure 2 .974 .227 .797 .004
Error 107 4.284
______
Note. h2 = partial eta squared effect size.
* p < .05.
Social Exclusion and Justifications on Perceived Fairness 173
Table 52
Intercorrelations between General Fairness, Accuracy, Procedural Process Control,
Procedural Agreement, Procedural Information Control, Procedural Satisfaction, and
Procedural Fairness
______
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
______
1. Gen. Fairness 1 .177 .430** .531** .264** .699** .743**
2. Accuracy .177 1 .285** .165 .177 .219* .218*
3. Process Control .430** .285** 1 .416** .354** .382** .554**
4. Agreement .531** .165 .416** 1 .257** .645** .608**
5. Information .264** .177 .354** .257** 1 .426** .349**
6. Satisfaction .699** .219** .382** .645** .426** 1 .728**
7. Proced. Fairness.743** .218* .554** .608** .349** .728** 1
______
Note. * p < .05 (two-tailed). ** p < .01 (two-tailed).