SUPERORDINATE IDENTIFICATION, SUBGROUP IDENTIFICATION, AND JUSTICE CONCERNS: Is Separatism the Problem; Is Assimilation the Answer?

The diversity of American society raises concern. about whether authorities can maintain social cohesion amid competing interests and values. The group-value model of jusrice suggests that authorities function more effectively when they are perceived as fair (e.g.. benevolent, neutral, and re spectful). However, such relational evaluations may be effective only if authorities represent a group with which peoplt identify. In a diverse society, subgroup memberships may as. sume special importance. People who identify predominant11 vith a subgroup may focus on instrumental issues when evaluating a superordinate-group authority, and conflicts with thar authority may escalate if those people do not receive favorable outcomes. Results indicate that subgroup identification creates problems for authorities only. when people have strong subgroup identification and weak superordinate-group identificaion. As long as people identify strongly with the superordinate group, even if they also identify strongly with their subgroup, elational issues will dominate reactions to authorities. in it The United States is fast on its ‘way to becoming a truly multicultural society. If the trend continues, what was once the lelting-pot society will be better described as a cultural mosaic which each ethnic group will be motivated to retain aspects of s culture rather than fully assimilating into “mainstream” society (Rose, 1993; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Diversity can be beneficial in utilizing the unique contributions of people from different backgrounds, but it may also create new forms of conflicts caused by differences in interests and values. Consequently, some people may be hesitant about relinquishing the melting-pot ideal, fearing that loyalty to ethnic groups prevents loyalty to the larger society. d This article deals with the problem of whether authorities can maintain cohesion within an ethnically diverse group. We escribe two psychological mechanisms, relational evaluations of authority (Tyler, 1994a) and social identification, that can help authorities to function more effectively by facilitating their efforts to bridge across competing interests and values. Furthermore, we show that these two mechanisms can bridge across group differences without requiring that those differences be suppressed. RELATIONAL EVALUATIONS Justice research demonstrates that perceptions ofjustice can enhance acceptance of decisions made by authorities, obedience to legal rules, and evaluations of legitimacy (e.g., Lind, Address correspondence to Yuen J. Huo, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley. CA 94720; e-mail: yjhuo@ garnet.berkeley.edu. SUPERORDINATE IDENTIFICATION, SUBGROUP IDENTIFICATION, AND JUSTICE CONCERNS: Is Separatism the Problem; Is Assimilation the Answer? Yuen J. Huo, Heather J. Smith, Tom R. Tyler, and E. Allan Lind University of California at Berkeley and ‘American Bar Foundation, Chicago Kanfer, & Earley, 1990; Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, &de vera Park 1993; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler & Mitchell, 1994) Justice theories based on the social-exchange framework argue that justice takes on special importance because it helps people obtain valued resources (e.g., Leventhal, 1976; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). From this perspective, authorities are most effective when they are able to provide group members with the kind of outcomes they seek. However, recent research based on the group-value model ofjustice shows that in addition to their concerns about outcomes, people ard concerned about issues related to the quality of their relationship with authorities and other group members (Tyler, 1994b; Tyler & Lind, 1992). This line of research suggests that acceptance of an authority’s decisions is enhanced when people feel that they are being treated fairly, independent of the nature of the outcome (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Lind, 1992).’ When making relational justice judgments, people consider three issues: feelings that authorities’ motives or intentions can be trusted (benevolence), beliefs that authorities’ actions are based on a nonbiased consideration of facts (neutrality), and feelings that authorities treat them with the dignity and respect appropriate for full group members (status recognition).2 The group-value model suggests why people care more about relational issues than instrumental issues when evaluating authorities (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989; Tyler & Lind, 1992). The underlying assumption of the group-value model is that people derive a sense of self-worth from group membership. Individuals assess their status within groups by evaluating the extent to which important group representatives, such as authorities, treat them fairly. When people feel that they are treated with benevolence, a lack of bias, and respect, their sense of self-worth is bolstered and their attachment to the group is reaffirmed. The instrumental view of justice suggests that a focus on outcomes will pose a serious problem for the maintenance of cohesion in a multicultural setting because it would be difficult to reconcile competing interests. The relational view offers a more optimistic outlook by suggesting that authorities may be 1. Consistent with the social-exchange model of justice, the groupvalue model suggests that people care about the quality of their outomes over time. However, the two models differ substantially in their predictions of the criteria people use to make justice judgments in any articular interaction. The key distinction lies in the focus of the groupalue model on treatment rather than on outcome as the main determiant of justice evaluations in important social interactions. For a disussion of these issues, see Tyler and Smith (in press). 2. In previous publications (e.g., Lind &Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind. 1992). benevolence was referred to as trustworthiness and status recognition as standing. Copyright C 1996 American Psychological Society VOL. 7. NO. I. JANUARY 1996