Seminar:
Fairness in the Resolution of Social Conflict (PSYCH 3166x)
Spring, 2005
Thursday, 2:10 - 4:00
Larry Heuer
Room: 227 Milbank Hall
Department of Psychology
Barnard
College
854-7507
LBH3@Columbia.edu
Office Hours: Thursday, 4:15 - 5:30
This seminar
will focus on research concerning procedural fairness.
Among the questions we will investigate are ones asking about the
meaning of procedural fairness and its social and psychological
consequences. We will rely almost entirely on published
research reports to advance our inquiry, and we will draw most
heavily from research designed to test psychological theories of
procedural fairness.
Students are expected to read the core articles prior to our weekly
meetings, and to write a brief "reaction paper" about the readings.
Each week three students will be
responsible for leading our discussion of that week's readings.
The students responsible for a particular week's discussion
will be expected to come to class prepared to summarize one of our assigned
readings and to stimulate our discussion if necessary.
Final grades will be based on class participation and
a final paper. There will be no exams.
Class participation:
(1) Students should
be familiar with all assigned readings each week, and come
to class prepared to discuss their thoughts on the material;
(2) By 12 noon on Wednesday
of each week, you will be required to to contribute to an online
discussion concerning the current week's assigned articles. This
discussion will take place through the Columbia
University Courseworks link to his course. You should include at least
3 comments or questions--one on each of that week's readings.
Comments might include criticisms of the research, ideas for
future research, or general thoughts on integrating the current
week's reading with other assigned materials. Basically,
these are notes of thoughts that occur to you as you read the materials,
and that you might bring up in our class discussion.
(3) Each week, two
students will be responsible for leading our class discussion.
This will require that you read the assigned article very carefully, with an
eye toward discussion topics you might introduce in the event that
our discussion wanes. You should also study the week's online discussion to assist you in thinking
about ways to expand our classroom discussion on each of our assigned articles. You
should complete your preparation by the Wednesday preceding our class
meeting, so that you can direct any questions to me before class.
(4) Students will be
allowed two un-excused absences during the semester.
No additional absences will be permitted. Arriving for class more than
10 minutes late, or failure to turn in a reaction paper by the designated
time, or a failure to participate in our weekly discussion will be counted as an absence. No excuses will be accepted.
Final paper.
A central goal of this course is to identify
areas in which the current state of theorizing and research
on the psychology of fairness leaves important theoretical
issues unresolved or applied questions unanswered. Our
discussions will be geared toward identifying fruitful avenues for
research which addresses these limitations. Consistent with
this approach, each student is required to write a paper in which
some area of the research relevant to this class is reviewed, a
problem is identified, and a study is proposed which addresses this
problem. This paper should be written in a format consistent
with the guidelines set out in the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association--it should begin with an abstract, followed
by an introduction, method section, and references.
The paper may not exceed 15 pages in length, and it
must include as least 4 references to work published in the years 2003-2005.
All final papers are due by 5 p.m. on April 29. No final
paper will be accepted unless it has been proposed during class in week
11 or 12 (see syllabus) and a brief written summary of your proposal has
been approved by me. All proposals must be approved by week 12
(April 7) or the final paper will receive a late penalty.
You are encouraged to use my office hours
and class time to discuss the development of your ideas and
the methods you will employ to test them.
Week 1. (1-20)
Course Introduction, Historical Overview
No Assigned Readings
Week 2. (1-27)
Distributive Justice and the Justice Motive
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some
hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of
Personality, 45, 1-52.
Lerner, M. J. (2003). The
justice motive: Where psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they
may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review,7,
388-399.
Montada, L. (2002). Doing
justice to the justice motive. In M. Ross Michael & D. T. Miller
(Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 41-62). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity
and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 21-43.
Week 3. (2-3)
Relational Theories of Procedural Justice
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural
Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality & Social
Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 25
(pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology
of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838.
Week 4. (2-10)
Cognitive Theories of Procedural
Justice
van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why fairness
matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural
fairness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79(3), 355-366.
van den Bos, K. (2001).
Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions
to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 80(6), 931-941.
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E.
(2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 1-60.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E.
(2002). Advances (2-1)
Week 5. (2-17)
Placing social justice
theories in a broader social psychological context
Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social
functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians,
theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451-471.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a
unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.
Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis:
A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three
moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99(4), 574-586.
Week 6. (2-24)
Distributive versus procedural versus interactional justice.
Bobocel, D. R., & Holmvall, C. M. (2001). Are
interactional justice and procedural justice different? Framing the debate.
In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social
issues in management: Theoretical and cultural perspectives on
organizational justice (Vol. 1, pp. 85-108). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Lupfer,
M. B., Weeks, K. P., Doan, K. A., & Houston, D. A. (2000). Folk conceptions of
fairness and unfairness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,
405-428.
Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally
based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1279-1292.
Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A
longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to
tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
266-275.
Week 7. (3-3)
When do fair procedures matter?
De Cremer, D., & Alberts,
H. (2004). When procedural fairness does not influence how positive i feel:
The effects of voice and leader selection as a function of belongingness
need. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34 (3), 333-344.
van Prooijen, J. W., 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 & Social Psychology, 87(1), 66-79.
Huo, Y. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group
boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3),
336-348.
van Prooijen, J.W., van
den Bos, K., &Wilke, H. A. M. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status
salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353–1361.
Week 8.
(3-10) When do fair procedures matter? (II)
Chen, Y.-R., Brockner, J., &
Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it "a pleasure to do business with you?" the
effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 92(1-2), 1-21.
Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J.
(2003). It's different to give than to receive: Predictors of givers' and
receivers' reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6),
1034-1045.
Ståhl,
T., Van Prooijen, J. W., & Vermunt, R. (2004). On the psychology of procedural
justice: Reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 173–189.
Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends
sometimes justify the means? A value model of justice reasoning. Personality
& Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 588-597.
Additional readings:
Heuer, L. Penrod, S., Gefen, S., & Saks, M. (In progress). Judicial decision
making in cases regarding the prediction of criminality: The role of societal
benefits and fairness concerns.
Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The
self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership,
self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34,
470–493.
Tyler, T. R.,
Lind, E. A., Ohbuchi, K. I., Sugawara, I., & Huo, Y. J. (1998). Conflict with
outsiders: Disputing within and across cultural boundaries. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 137–146.
Platow, M. J., &
van Knippenberg, D. A. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership
endorsement: The effects of leader in-group prototypicality and distributive
intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
1508–1519.
Huo, Y. J., Smith,
H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification,
subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is
assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7,40–45.
Week 9. (3-24)
The meaning of fair treatment
Skitka, L. J. (2003). Of
Different Minds: An Accessible Identity Model of Justice Reasoning. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 286-297.
Heuer, L. & Stroessner, S. (In progress). A Multiple-Motivational Model of
Procedural Justice.
Heuer, L., Penrod, S., Hafer, C. L., & Cohn, I. (2002). The role of resource and
relational concerns for procedural justice. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(11), 1468-1482.
Additional readings:
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural
justice: Defining the meaning of a "fair" process. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747-758.
Hareli (1999). Justice and deservingness judgments – refuting the
interchangeability assumption. New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 17, 1999,
pp. 183-193.
Week 10
(3-31) Applied Justice Research I: Affirmative Action
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., et al.
(2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates.
American Psychologist, 58(2), 93-115.
Federico, CM; Sidanius, J (2002).
Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and
consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 488-502.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D., & Zanna, M. P.
(2002). Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions
in the face of discrimination. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
83(3), 493-509.
Additional readings:
Bobocel, D.,
Son Hing, L. S., Holmvall, C. M., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Policies to redress
social injustice: Is the concern for justice a cause both of support and of
opposition? In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in
everyday life (pp. 204-225). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Crosby, F.
J., & Franco, J. L. (2003). Connections Between the Ivory Tower and the
Multicolored World: Linking Abstract Theories of Social Justice to the Rough
and Tumble of Affirmative Action. Personality & Social Psychology Review,
7(4), 362-373.
Elkins, T. J., Bozeman, D.
P., Phillips, J. S. (2003). Promotion decisions in an
affirmative action environment: Can social accounts change fairness
perceptions? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6): 1111-1139.
Week
11. (4-7) Applied Justice Research II: Social Movements
Sturmer,
B., & Simon, S. (2004). The role of collective identification in social
movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay
movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 263-277.
Wright, S. C. (2001). Restricted intergroup boundries: Tokenism, ambiguity,
and the tolerance of injustice. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The
psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and
intergroup relations (pp. 223-254). New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Leach,
C. W., & Fischer, A. H. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is:
Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group
efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664.
Additional readings:
Klandermans, B. (2001). Why social movements come into being and why people
join them. In J. R. Blau (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Sociology
(pp. 268-281). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Klandermans, B., Sabucedo, J. M., &
Rodriguez, M. (2004). Inclusiveness among identification of farmers in the
Netherlands and Galicia (Spain). European Journal of Social Psychology, 34,
279-295.
Week 12. (4-14) Final
Paper Presentations (I)
Week 13. (4-21) Belief
in a Just-World
Hafer, C. (2004).
Experimental Research on Just-World Theory: Problems, Developments, and Future
Challenges. Psychological Bulletin.
Kay, A.C., Jost, J. T., &
Young, S. (in press). Victim-derogation and victim-enhancement as alternate
routes to system justification. Psychological Science.
Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2004). A
prospective investigation of the relationship between just-world beliefs and
the desire for revenge after september 11, 2001. Psychological Science,
15(7), 503-506.
Week 14. (4-28) Final Paper Presentations (II)