Grumbling, voting, demonstrating, and rioting: ''Rationality'' and decision-making in intergroup conflict

An individual faced with intergroup conflict chooses A from a vast array of possible actions, ranging from grumbling among ingroup friends to voting and demonstrating to rioting and revolution. The present paper conceptualises these intergroup choices as rationally shaped by perceptions of the benefits and costs associated with the action (expectancy-value processes). However, in presenting a model of agentic normative influence, it is argued that in intergroup contexts group-level costs and benefits play a critical role in individuals' decision-making. In the context of English-French conflict in Quebec, in Canada, four studies provide evidence that group-level costs and benef influence individuals' decision-making in intergro conflict; that the individual level of analysis need mediate the group level of analysis; that group-level co and benefits mediate the relationship between soc identity and intentions to engage in collective action; a that perceptions of outgroup and ingroup norms for inte group behaviours are relatively invariant and predictal related to perceptions of the group- and individual-le, benefits and costs associated with individualistic vers collective actions. By modelling the relationship betwe group norms and group-level costs and benefits, soc psychologists may begin to address the processes th underlie identity-behaviour relationships in collecti action and intergroup conflict.

Am I being treated fairly by my leaders? The roles of group identification and self-other comparisons in judgements of procedural justice

The current experiment focuses on the roles of social identity and social comparison in perceptions of procedural justice. Participants are randomly allocated to conditions in a 2 (whether the participant has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other is an ingroup or an outgroup member), between subjects design. Participants are then asked to report the extent to which they perceive the procedure they are involved in to be fair. It is predicted that participants will have a strong feeling of procedural unfairness when they are not given an opportunity by the leader to voice their opinion, but learn that their comparison other is given that opportunity. It is also predicted that the feeling of unfairness should be stronger when the comparison other is an outgroup rather than an ingroup member. Additionally, participants receiving a fair treatment may regard the procedure as fair when their outgoup comparison other receives an unfair treatment. Results support these predictions and reveal that how people make judgments of procedural justice through social comparison is qualified by the social identities of the parties involved.