Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal Authorities

American Bar Foundation

Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal AuthoritiesAuthor(s): Tom R. TylerSource: Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 983-1019Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Bar FoundationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/829122 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 00:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Bar Foundation are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLaw &Social Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.191 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:15:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=abf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/829122?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal Authorities

Tom R. Tyler

A key problem in trying to manage diverse societies is finding social policies that will be acceptable to all individuals and groups. Studies suggest that this problem may not be as intractable as is often believed, since people's acceptance of policies is shaped to an important degree by the fairness of the procedures used by authorities to make policy. When policies are fairly made, they gain widespread support, even among those who may feel that the consequences of the policy for them or their group are undesirable or even unfair. These findings support an optimistic view of the ability of authorities to manage diverse societies. On the other hand, research suggests that the ability of procedural justice to bridge differences among individuals and groups may not be equally strong under all conditions. People's willingness to accept policies is more influenced by procedural justice judgments when they identify with the society that the authorities represent and view them as representing a group of which they are members. They are less influenced by procedural justice judgments when they identify more strongly with subgroups than with society and/or view the authorities as representatives of a group to which they do not belong.

Laws and legal authorities are created by societies for several reasons. One reason is to restrain those self-interested individual behaviors that are destructive to society. Actions undertaken by individuals to pursue their short- term self-interest are sometimes harmful to the group. For example, people cannot rob banks or drive when drunk, since their actions hurt other members of society. Hence, such behaviors need to be constrained. A second

Tom R. Tyler is professor of psychology at New York University, New York City, and adjunct professor at New York University Law School. He is the author of Why People Obey the Law (1990), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (1988), and Social Justice in a Diverse Society (1997).

© 2000 American Bar Foundation. 0897-6546/00/2504-983$01.00 983



984 LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY

reason for having laws is to coordinate individual behavior. In the case of traffic laws, for example, it is not especially important whether people drive on the right or left side of the road. It is, however, important that everyone drive on the same side of the road.

In the case of both restraint and coordination, the key to the effectiveness of laws is that people obey them. Hence, to be effective, legal authorities need to be able to secure compliance with laws among members of the public. Legal authorities have the distinct social responsibility of enforcing social rules, and their ability to do so determines the degree to which laws contribute to the viability of society.

The willingness of citizens to obey the law is, of course, only a small element affecting the overall viability of any society. However, it is central to the ability of the legal system to fulfill its particular regulatory role. As social regulatory authorities, legal authorities are responsible for securing compliance with laws and for gaining acceptance for decisions that seek to resolve social conflicts. If the legal system cannot do this effectively, society has difficulties and is less effective.

I will argue further that the viability of legal authorities in a democratic society depends upon their ability to secure voluntary compliance with the law. While some coercion is possible, the legal system relies heavily on the voluntary cooperation of citizens (Tyler 1990). The legal system has, at best, a limited ability to compel people to obey the law and is heavily dependent on widespread voluntary cooperation with judicial directives. Dis- satisfaction is of concern because it undermines people's willingness to

voluntarily obey laws. The difficulties of effectively implementing laws in the absence of will-

ing, voluntary, compliance have been widely noted (Tyler 1990). In cases of

widespread disobedience with court orders, as has recently occurred in the United States with child support payment orders, the courts have had difficulty securing compliance through threatening or using punishments. Simi-

larly, in the cases handled in small-claims courts, cases involving landlord- tenant disputes, conflicts among neighbors, nonpayment of bills to busi- nesses for products or services, consumer dissatisfaction with products or services, and other minor disputes, difficulty securing voluntary compliance is widespread.

Beyond compliance with specific judicial orders, it is important that

people generally comply with laws and legal regulations. Yet, there is also

widespread evidence of at least some public disobedience with law in everyday life (Tyler 1990). In the area of tax noncompliance, for example, the belief that there is a nontrivial frequency of underpayment is widespread (Roth and Scholz 1989; Roth, Scholz, and Witte 1989).

Research findings demonstrate that both specific decisions and more

general laws and public policies are difficult to enforce using threats of



Multiculturalism and Citizen Deference to Law 985

punishment. In a recent review of deterrence research on drug use, for example, MacCoun (1993) suggests that, at best, 5% of the variance in law- related behavior can be explained by variations in the perceived certainty and severity of punishment. This suggestion is consistent with the findings of recent panel studies on law-related behaviors, which show that deterrence considerations have, at best, a minor influence on behavior (Nagin and Pateroster 1991; Paternoster 1989; Tyler 1990). In the case of drug laws, despite larger police forces, increasing the penalties for drug use, and filling American prisons with drug offenders, the United States has been generally unable to lessen drug use.

In the parallel case of efforts to diminish drunk driving, Ross (1982) points out that the level of police enforcement needed to bring the probability of punishment for driving while drunk to the level required to deter offenders is prohibitively high. Hence, authorities must depend on voluntary deference to their decisions by most of the population, most of the time. Authorities need for people to take the obligation to obey the law onto themselves and to voluntarily act on that perceived obligation. They need the consent and cooperation of the governed.

Securing voluntary deference to judicial decisions is especially difficult since disputants typically go to third-party authorities only with conflicts that have proven to be too difficult for them to resolve through bilateral discussions and negotiations (Thibaut and Walker 1975). Hence, the legal system is usually presented with conflicts in which the parties have the few- est common interests and are in the greatest disagreement. This makes it especially difficult to give either or both parties what they want and feel they deserve. Further, conflicts typically come to the court after they have been escalated and negative feelings are very high (Rubin 1980). Hence, courts are faced with the problem of effectively resolving the most difficult conflicts.

All of these factors point to the importance of creating decisions that disputants are willing to voluntarily accept and to obey. What leads to voluntary acceptance of legal decisions? Two factors are important: morality and legitimacy. People are more likely to voluntary accept legal decisions if they think they are morally right and they are more likely to voluntarily accept decisions if they think that legal authorities are legitimate and ought to be obeyed.

These findings suggest that the ability to secure voluntary compliance with law and legal decisions is linked to the attitudes of the population (see Tyler 1990). Further, it suggests that views about the morality and legitimacy of the law and legal authorities are two crucial attitudes antecedent to securing voluntary compliance. And voluntary compliance helps legal authorities to effectively fulfill their social role. Again, of course, it is important to recognize that the ability to secure acceptance, which is facilitated




by the existence of supportive attitudes, is only one of many elements shaping the viability of the legal system within democratic societies.

The issue I address can be framed as a set of larger questions: (1) Do public attitudes influence the viability of democratic societies? and, if so, (2) What public attitudes are relevant to the viability of democratic societies? Posed in this way, the questions become questions that have been the focus of the work of other sociolegal scholars and that define the study of "legal culture." Many scholars have suggested that political or legal culture is important to the development and maintenance of democracies (Almond and Verba 1963; Huntington 1984; Inglehart 1990; DiPalma 1990). However, as Gibson, Duch and Tedin argue, there is little agreement on what cultural attributes are conducive to democratic development (1992, 331-32).

One approach that legal scholars have taken is to map the cultural values of different societies. For example, Gibson and Caldeira (1996) address the question of legal culture by examining the legal values of different European countries. They utilize public opinion polls to examine the attitudes of mass publics. In this particular study the extent of legal alienation, the value placed on liberty, and the degree of support for the rule of law are examined. In a similarly conceived study Gibson, Duch, and Tedin (1992) explore the political values of the Soviet Union, including support for the norms of democracy, the degree of political tolerance, the value placed on liberty, the degree of support for competitive elections, rights consciousness, the degree of support for dissent, and the degree of support for an independent media. This approach leaves open the connection between the extent to which there is support for these values, the amount of desirable citizen behaviors, and the subsequent viability of democracy.

In this article I focus on one area of legal culture in which the linkages I have outlined are documented: my work on the antecedents of voluntary compliance with the law. Using that area as an example, I explore some of the issues that ethnic diversity and multiculturalism pose for the governance of democratic societies. Of course, it is important to remember that I address only one of many potentially important aspects of civic or legal culture and only one of many types of citizen behaviors that influence the viability of democratic societies.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS POSED BY DIVERSITY

Competing Moral Visions: Issues of Multiculturalism

Ethnic diversity is the projected future of the United States. In Califor- nia, America's most populous and ethnically diverse state, white Americans are projected to be a minority by the year 2020 (California Department of Finance 1993). Further, in the 1990s, 45% of all additions to the American




workforce have been nonwhite, with 50% coming from Asian and Latin countries (Cox 1993; Fullerton 1987; Johnston 1991).

Such diversity, in and of itself, does not necessarily pose a problem for America. Our society has always been a diverse one in terms of the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of citizens. Most of the American population has always been composed of people who were immigrants, willing or unwilling, from other societies. What has changed in recent years is the origin of immigrants. In the past most immigrants came from Europe. More recently increasing percentages of immigrants are from Asia and from the Spanish- speaking world.

The potential problem posed by ethnic diversity for the viability of democratic institutions lies not in diversity itself but in the issue of multiculturalism. Traditionally Americans have believed that new members of our society should assimilate, forsaking the values of their old cultures and

accepting the dominant values of American society. In other words, immi-

grants should adopt Western political, legal, and social values (Moghaddam and Solliday 1991). One of the most important of these values is respect for law and legal authorities.

However, not all members of minority groups are interested in assimi- lating. Instead, they argue for a multicultural model, such as that found in Canada. Such pressures have intensified, since many immigrants from Asian societies and many immigrants from the Spanish-speaking world have strong cultures that they resist abandoning. They support a model of society that accommodates to the moral and cultural values of diverse groups, rec- ognizing their validity and incorporating them into overall societal values. For example, in Canada the French language is recognized as an official second language. In the United States, in contrast, only English is recognized as an official language.

These pressures suggest that America is becoming a mosaic society, in which distinct subgroups coexist within a common framework. Under this model, instead of one dominant set of legal and political values, society accommodates to the values of the various subgroups within it (Lieberson and Waters 1987).

This potential change in American government and social structure has provoked widespread concern about the presumed destructive consequences of moving from a society based on identification with a single set of superordinate values and institutions to a society composed of citizens with strong identifications with their ethnic and racial subgroups-a multicultural or "mosaic" society. Concerns about the transformation of America into a "preservative of diverse alien identities," that is, a society of "groups more or less ineradicable in their ethnic character" have been expressed by social commentators (Schlesinger 1992). Underlying these concerns is the question of whether democratic institutions and values can continue to




exist in a mosaic society. The fear is that the legitimacy of societal rules and authorities would diminish among minorities who place greater importance on their affiliation with their own ethnic subgroups than the larger society.

Of course, these possible social forces need to balanced against the counter desire of many, and perhaps most, immigrants to become Ameri- cans and to assimilate into an American lifestyle, at least in their public behavior. Immigrants seek to find jobs, get their children good schooling, live in a decent community and, in the process, they become citizens, inter- marry, move away from ethnically distinct communities, and develop loyalties to the basic values of traditional American society. The motivation to remain separate should not be exaggerated. However, it should be recognized, and its implications explored.

What difficulties are associated with multiculturalism? As I have already noted, one psychological force that can encourage people to voluntarily accept laws is the judgment that those laws are morally right. In such a case, citizens who are motivated by social value concerns take the responsibility to obey the law onto themselves. In the everyday cases studied by Tyler (1990), such value-based concerns are united with the judgment that laws were created by legitimate legal authorities and ought to be obeyed.

If people have diverse moral visions and do not agree about a common morality, then morality is no longer a unified psychological force supporting the law. For some people, morality would support following laws, for others doing the morally correct thing would involve breaking the law. Hence, for some people morality and legitimacy would conflict, for others they would be in harmony.

Of course, this potential conflict between morality and legitimate government demands is hardly a new problem introduced by multiculturalism. Historically, there have often been conflicts between moral visions motivated by religious group memberships and the dictates of legitimate legal or

political authorities (Kelman and Hamilton 1989). However, multiculturalism represents an arena within which these issues are being played out in contemporary America. The issue raised is what happens when legitimacy and morality conflict?

Here I consider the conditions under which legal authorities can bridge differences in moral values or group and individual interests by producing solutions and policies that will be commonly accepted by the members of all

groups. In such a situation, people are deferring to legal authorities because those authorities are legitimate and they feel they ought to be obeyed, even

though their decisions are possibly contrary to people's feelings about what is right.

To address this question we need a better understanding about why people defer to legal authorities. A large body of literature has developed demonstrating that people regard as legitimate and voluntarily defer to




authorities who make decisions in ways that they regard as fair. This procedural justice finding suggests that the key to the effectiveness of legal authorities lies in creating and maintaining the public view that authorities are functioning fairly.

The procedural justice model has two components. The first is the role of procedural justice in shaping reactions to decisions. The procedural justice argument is that people accept decisions because of the manner in which they are made. This is contrary to the widely held view that people embrace decisions if they feel that they have "won" and resist them if they feel that they have "lost." It argues that all parties to a dispute will be more likely to accept the decision of legal authorities and everyone will be more likely to obey rules and laws if they feel that legal authorities make decisions and create and enforce rules in ways that are fair.

The second component of the procedural justice model is concerned with the way that people decide whether or not a procedure is fair. For the procedural justice model to be effective, people need to evaluate procedures by using criteria that are distinct from judgments of outcome favorability or fairness. If people evaluate the fairness of procedures by evaluating the outcomes of those procedures, then their procedural justice judgments will not serve as an effective basis for the exercise of legal authority. The relational model of justice (Tyler and Lind 1992) argues that people evaluate procedural fairness using non-outcome-based criteria, such as the degree to which those procedures allow them to be treated with dignity and respect.

To conclude that the procedural justice model is a good representation, it is necessary to first find that people evaluate legal authorities and their decisions by considering the fairness of legal procedures. It is then necessary to demonstrate that people evaluate the fairness of those procedures using relational criteria that are distinct from judgments about the favorability or fairness of the outcomes of the procedure. If both elements of the model are supported, then the procedural justice model offers a viable prescription for legal authorities. In contrast, instrumental models predict that people will accept decisions when those decisions favor them. As a consequence, when there is a case in court, and one person prevails, we expect that person to accept the decision and the "loser" to resist it. The loser must then, in some manner, be compelled to accept the decision. Their unhappiness is assumed, as is their resistance. While coercion is explicit in law, it is costly and time consuming. Society benefits when it can be avoided.

Research testing the procedural justice model suggests that, as argued by the procedural justice model, authorities can bridge large differences in value and interests if they can maintain people's judgment that they are functioning fairly. To illustrate this finding, consider a recent test of the ability of national authorities to use fair procedures to effectively manage




policy differences. This test examines the ability of the United States Su- preme Court to make a policy about abortion.

Tyler and Mitchell (1994) explore the antecedents of people's willingness to defer to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion rights. They do so in telephone interviews with a random sample of 502 citizens in the San Francisco Bay area. Their study examines the role of three factors in shaping reactions to the Court and its decision. Those factors are the degree of agreement with the decision, judgments about the fairness of the decision, and judgments about the fairness of the decision- making process. The importance of each of these factors is shown in table 1. The results shown indicate that procedural justice judgments (i.e., assessments that decision-making procedures are fair) are the primary factor shaping both judgments about the legitimacy of the Court and the willingness to defer to its decision about abortion policy. People's willingness to defer abortion decisions to the Court is more strongly predicted by whether they believe Court decision-making is fair (beta weight = 0.43) than by whether people believe that Court decisions are fair (beta weight = 0.26) or whether people agree with those decisions (beta weight = 0.16). Likewise, the only one of those variables that has a statistically significant relation with a person's view that the Court is a legitimate legal authority is the person's view that Court decision-making procedures are fair (beta weight = 0.13).

The findings of Tyler and Mitchell (1994) indicate that the primary antecedents of judgments about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and of the willingness to defer to the Court's abortion decision (Roe v. Wade) are evaluations of the fairness of Court decision-making procedures. These judgments-that is, of legitimacy and of the willingness to give the authority to make this decision to the Court-are themselves interrelated, sug- gesting a general procedural influence on reactions to authorities.

The second level of the procedural justice model involves how people define the fairness of a procedure. Here we need to examine the extent of support for a relational conception of procedural justice (Tyler and Lind 1992). The relational model proposes that procedural justice judgments develop from people's reactions to the interpersonal aspects of their experience with authorities. These interpersonal aspects of their experience reflect the quality of the treatment that people receive as opposed to their views about the fairness or the favorability of the outcomes of a procedure.

The relational model suggests that citizens care about the quality of their treatment by authorities because it communicates information about their stature within society. To be treated with dignity and respect reassures citizens that they are important and valued members of society, entitled to recognition of their status and rights. This recognition of one's inclusion within society is distinct from outcome judgments that indicate the level or




TABLE 1 The Legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court

Court Is Appropriate for Legitimate Legal Court to Make

Indices of Agreement Authority This Decision

Agree with Court's abortion decision -.01 .05 Abortion is morally acceptable .11 .08 Generally agree with Court decisions .04 .16* Abortion should be legal .17* .11 Court decisions are fair .08 .26* Court decision-making procedures are fair .13* .43* adj. R.-sq. 13%* 62%*

High scores indicate that the respondent thinks that the Court is a legitimate institution and should make abortion policy. They also indicate agreeing with the Court's abortion decision; thinking abortion is morally acceptable; generally agreeing with Court decisions; thinking abortion should be legal; thinking Court decisions are fair; and thinking that Court decision-making procedures are fair.

NOTE: N = 502. All entries are beta weights. Starred entries are significant (p < .05). Controls for characteristics of the respondent are also included in the equation, but are not shown. Those controls include ideology, party identification, sex, income, education, age, race, and religion. For a more complete analysis, see Tyler and Mitchell 1994.

favorability of the rewards one is receiving from the group and from group authorities.

According to the relational model, three relational judgments are im-

portant. Those three judgments are: neutrality, trustworthiness, and status

recognition (treatment with dignity and respect). First, people react to the

neutrality of the decision maker. This includes assessments of that person's evenhandedness, their lack of bias, and their willingness to make factual, objective decisions. Second, they react to their inferences about the trustworthiness of the decision maker's motives, that is, whether they believe that the authority is benevolent and caring. Finally, they react to the re-

spectfulness of their treatment by the decision maker (i.e., the degree to which their status is recognized through polite treatment and respect for their rights).

It is especially striking that people are concerned with whether or not they are treated with dignity and respect (i.e., status recognition), an aspect of their interaction with authorities that has very little to do with the nature of the outcomes they receive. These aspects of experience reflect the quality of the person's relationship to the group and to group authorities. Such "relational" judgments are distinct from judgments of outcome favorability-instrumental judgments reflecting the ability of the individual to secure desired outcomes in interactions with others.




The relational model predicts that people will make procedural justice evaluations through reference to relational aspects of their experience with authorities-that is, via judgments about neutrality, trustworthiness, and status recognition-rather than through assessments of the favorability of their outcomes.

In the same study I have already outlined, I can also examine the role of relational judgments in shaping views about the fairness of Court decision-making procedures. The results of such an examination in the case of the Supreme Court are shown in table 2. They suggest that procedural justice judgments are, as expected, relationally based. People are asked to im- agine a situation in which they care enough about some issue before the Supreme Court to join a group that presents its views to the Court. They are then asked how much influence they feel their views would have over the decisions made by the Court. These views are compared to the influence of judgments about the neutrality, trustworthiness, and respectfulness of the Court.

This comparison of the importance of the influence of outcomes to the magnitude of the effect of neutrality, trustworthiness, and status recognition suggests that some relational indicators are more central to judgments about procedural justice than some judgments about influence over outcomes. The procedural justice attributed to the Supreme Court is influenced by judgments about its neutrality and trustworthiness but not by perceived influence over its decisions. In this case, respect for citizens, another relational indicator, had no distinct influence upon procedural justice judgments.

The findings from the Tyler and Mitchell (1994) study suggest that the use of fair procedures can facilitate policy endorsement by citizens even when people disagree with the policies being enacted. Specifically, people are willing to endorse a judicial decision arrived at using fair procedures, even when the decision conflicts with their personal beliefs and values. Fur- ther, they define fairness by reference to procedural elements (i.e., neutrality, trustworthiness) that are distinct from outcomes. The implication of the set of findings outlined is that a procedural justice strategy could potentially be very effective in reconciling individual differences in beliefs and values.

The Tyler and Mitchell (1994) study demonstrates that a procedural justice strategy can allow authorities to effectively manage differences in moral values. In this paper, I suggest that one current challenge posed by the changing nature of society for legal institutions is the increased importance of ethnic group memberships. Will a procedural justice strategy still be effective when public policies directly address issues that are related to ethnic or racial memberships? In other words, Can a procedural justice strategy be used to facilitate the endorsement of a policy that (1) has oppos- ing costs and benefits for individuals of varying ethnicity and/or (2) pits the interests of one group against another?




TABLE 2 The Elements of a Fair Supreme Court Decision-Making Procedure

Supreme Court Decision-Making Fair

Respondent can influence Court decisions -.13 Court is neutral .48* Justices are trustworthy .34* Court treats people with respect .10 adj. R.-sq. 60%*

High scores indicate that the respondent feels the Court makes fair decisions; that they can influence Court decisions; that the Court is neutral; that justices are trustworthy; and that the Court treats people with dignity and respect.

NOTE: N = 502. Entries are beta weights. Starred entries are statistically significant (p < .05).

A consideration of how to gain acceptance for such a policy is important for two reasons. First, consideration of the basis of acceptance in such a situation tells us whether fair procedures can be effective in the face of

strong differences in individual or group-based interests. If a policy poses significant personal costs or benefits to people of a particular ethnic or social group, then perhaps the effects of a procedural justice strategy would be limited. Second, it has been suggested that public policies that are associated with group membership issues may be especially divisive (Taylor and

Moghaddam 1994). Preferential treatment policies such as affirmative action and antidis-

crimination policies are two public policies that have great cost and benefit implications for individuals and groups. For disadvantaged minority members, these policies are in their personal and group interests, while for advantaged majority members, these policies are not in their interests. Furthermore, such policies are particularly volatile because they are linked to group membership. Individuals are either helped or harmed by such policies because of their ascribed group membership.

Using survey interviews with a random sample of 502 people in the San Francisco area, Lea, Smith, and Tyler (1994) examined whether fair procedures can enhance endorsement of such controversial public policies. The results of their analysis are shown in table 3. The findings of their study suggest that the respondents' race, their perception of their group's current outcomes, and their beliefs that they or their group would benefit or lose from the policy are all significantly related to their support for race-targeted policies such as preferential treatment and antidiscrimination policies. However, these effects are weak.

Evaluations of policy fairness are more strongly related to support for antidiscrimination and preferential treatment policies than are (1) assess-




TABLE 3 Antecedents of Support for Group-Based Public Policies

Support for Support for anti- preferential treatment

discrimination laws policies

Characteristics of the person: 12% 14% Race 3% 9% Age, sex, education, ideology, 9% 5%

racial attitudes Whether race-based discrimination 8% 14%

in workplace a problem Differences in outcomes for 5% 7%

members of different groups unfair

Differences in opportunities 6% 12% unfair

Views about policies/policymakers 30% 37% Policy helps me and my group 3% 7% Policy maker (Congress) is 12% 15%

legitimate authority Policy itself is fair procedure 27% 32%

Total adj. R-sq. 37% 44%

NOTE: N = 502. Sample is drawn from the Bay area of California. It is a random sample with an oversample of African Americans (n = 152). Each entry is the adjusted multiple correlation coefficient for one factor or group of factors. For example, the entry of 3% in the row labeled "race" indicates that the respondent's race (white or African American) explains 3% of the variance in his or her support for antidiscrimination laws. In this case, it is nonwhites who favor antidiscrimination laws more strongly than do whites. Readers should keep in mind that the entries are independent and do not control for other variables listed on the table.

ments of the likely impact of such policies on individuals or groups; (2)

respondent characteristics (including race or sex); or (3) assessments of the

magnitude of current ethnic inequality. Views about policy fairness ac- counted for 27% of the variance in support for antidiscrimination laws and 32% of the variance in support for affirmative action. In contrast, race ex-

plained 3% of the variance in antidiscrimination laws and 9% of the vari-

ance in affirmative action support, with African Americans being more

likely than whites to favor these policies. Views about current inequality explained 8% of the variance in antidiscrimination laws and 14% of the variance in support for affirmative action. That is, people who think that race-based discrimination is a big problem are more likely to support these

policies. And, views about the costs or benefits of the policy to oneself and

one's group explained 3% of the variance in support for antidiscrimination laws and 7% of the variance in support for affirmative action. Hence, even




in the case of controversial group-based policies that help some and not others, a procedural strategy is effective in enhancing policy support.

Furthermore, general evaluations of whether Congress is the appropriate and legitimate decision maker are more closely related to policy endorsement than specific evaluations of the policy's costs and benefits, regardless of the respondents' group membership. For both minority respondents, who stood to benefit from these policies and for majority respondents, who might potentially lose, general evaluations of the legitimacy of Congress are more closely related to policy endorsement than are assessments of the policy's costs and benefits. Again, people are willing to support authorities that they view as legitimate even if they or their group might not directly benefit from the policies of that authority in the short term.

Both of the studies on public support for controversial policies that I have outlined-the study of the Supreme Court and abortion policy and the study of Congress and support for affirmative action policy-are surveys in which people are interviewed about their perceptions of the actions of national authorities. The conclusions of these studies are based on correlational analyses. However, one could argue that it is beliefs that the authority is legitimate or a policy desirable that lead to judgments that procedures are fair, rather than vice versa. It is therefore encouraging that support is also found for the effectiveness of using a procedural strategy in a study using experimental vignettes, rather than correlational analysis (Tyler 1994a).

In Tyler (1994a), a survey of 502 residents of Northern California explored people's willingness to support a leader who decided to allow federally funded abortions. This study was conducted on the same sample of 502 citizens who have already been described in Tyler and Mitchell (1994). Their feelings about their willingness to support a government leader who decided that the government should fund abortions were assessed after they read one of several vignettes in which the nature of the outcome and the fairness of the procedure used by Congress to adopt the policy were system- atically manipulated. Respondents were asked about their willingness to support that leader through, for example, voting for them in the future.

The fairness of the procedure was manipulated in two ways. In half of the vignettes, someone representing the respondent's opinion had the opportunity to explain their opposition or support for the policy (voice), while in the other half of the vignettes, there was no such opportunity (no voice). In half the vignettes, the decision was the product of public hearings (neutral), while in the other half of the vignettes, the decision was made in private (not neutral). Finally, the outcome of the process was manipulated to support or oppose the respondent's own position on the issue. This 2 * 2 * 2 experimental design independently manipulated voice, neutrality, and outcome favorability.




TABLE 4 Experimental Vignette: Procedural Fairness and Support for Government Leaders Endorsing Federally Funded Abortions

Willingness to Support Leader

Degree of Variable/d.f. Freedom Mean square Mean square/F

Outcome favorability (A) 1 302.70 79.78* Neutrality (B) 1 25.18 6.64* Voice (C) 1 35.97 9.48* A * B 1 1.08 0.29 A * C 1 5.13 1.35 B *C 1 9.80 2.58 A*B*C 1 0.11 0.03 Evaluation of Congress 1 18.37 4.84* Views on the issue (pro/con) 1 2.29 0.60 Age 1 4.07 1.07 Gender 1 1.13 0.30 Race 1 0.03 0.01 Income 1 0.42 0.11 Education 1 0.51 0.13 Residual 432 3.79 Total 446 4.63

NOTE: N = 502 citizens in the northern California Bay area. Starred entries are statistically significant. The vignettes were set up so as to deliver outcomes that were consistent with or not consistent with the respondent's position. Separately, respondents could have a position that favored or opposed federal funding of abortions.

The results of the vignette experiment are shown in table 4. They indicate that both the outcome and the procedure have a significant impact on

people's endorsement of a leader who supported a policy to fund abortions. Most importantly, this experiment shows that process issues such as neutral-

ity and voice have a direct causal effect on support for a policy independent of one's personal views on the matter. This finding suggests that procedural fairness judgments do not simply reflect prior views about authorities or policies. Instead, they are linked to the actual nature of the procedures in-

volved. Of course, as the findings indicate, the favorability of the outcome

also shapes legitimacy. In summary, the existing evidence suggests that a procedural strategy

can effectively manage conflicts of values and interests in public disagree- ments about important social policy issues. Authorities benefit when those within their group accord them a legitimacy that is based on judgments about the fairness of their decision-making strategies. They further benefit when procedural justice judgments are linked to relational assessments of

their neutrality, trustworthiness, and willingness to respect group members.




Leaders benefit because they are able to secure voluntary compliance with their decisions, which is more efficient than relying on their ability to govern based on reward or coercion. This procedural-relational underpin- ning of legitimacy is crucial to the effectiveness of authorities, since it allows authorities to act without having to compel obedience to their decisions and to social rules. Legitimacy gives authorities discretionary authority that can be used to serve the long-term interests of the group.

In contrast, if legitimacy is based on policy agreement or outcome favorability, then authorities will lose legitimacy whenever they create policies that counter the self-interests or values of individuals or groups within society. However, studies have failed to support the instrumental model of authority. Instead, they have supported the predictions of the procedural justice model. And that support provides a hopeful conclusion about the ability of authorities to bridge differences among subgroups. The procedural justice model suggests that authorities can garer widespread support for their policies, as well as make difficult decisions without losing public support, if they utilize fair decision-making procedures and show respect for individual members of their society.

Existing research shows that the procedural justice approach can help authorities to make accommodations among the differences in values and interests that exist between citizens about important social problems. Such an approach allows authorities to effectively manage intractable differences in opinion about what the "right" solution to these problems should be. For example, there are many solutions to the current crisis in health care. The research outlined suggests that if people perceive that the policy adopted to deal with the health care crisis is arrived at using fair procedures, there is a higher likelihood that they will accept the policy than they will if the procedures used to make the policy are perceived as unfair. This suggestion would be tested if a fair procedure led to an unfair policy. In that case, the findings I have outlined suggest that people's support for that policy would not be strong. This is the key advantage of a procedural justice strategy-it can gain acceptance from both the winners and the losers in a policy debate.

However, we must be wary of possible abuses of a procedural strategy. Fair procedures can potentially be enacted to distract individuals from their "true" interests. Research has demonstrated that people's attention can be diverted away from distal, distributive issues to proximal, procedural issues. In fact, people may use the fairness or unfairness of procedures as a heuristic for determining the justice of the outcome distribution (Lind et al. 1993), relying on this potentially limited cue to reflect the overall fairness of decisions and policies. Judgments that a procedure is fair may discourage a critical assessment of the fairness of outcomes. The heuristic that fair procedures lead to fair outcomes (Tyler and Lind 1992) might be overused, leading to




satisfaction with undesirable results (e.g., Greenberg 1990; Tyler and Mc- Graw 1986).

Scheingold (1974), for example, examines the use of the courts by members of disadvantaged groups and suggests that the courts often provide only symbolic satisfactions to the disadvantaged. By symbolic he means satisfactions not linked to the actual attainment of material resources. For example, satisfaction over being treated with respect by a Court, even when the Court rules against one's case. He argues that the disadvantaged derive satisfaction because they focus on the proximal procedural issues involved in litigation rather than on the distal distributive problems that they ini- tially hoped to solve. Focusing on the fairess of procedures can obscure the fact that nothing has changed in terms of structural inequality, even though people have received a "symbolic" recognition of their status or rights.

Is There a Consensus about Procedures?

I have presented an optimistic picture of the ability of procedures to facilitate the management of conflict. Does this optimism extend to such conflict management in multiethnic, multicultural settings?

One possible limitation on the use of fair procedures in a multicultural situation is that not everyone may evaluate their experience by focusing on

procedural justice. Unless everyone involved reacts to the fairness of procedures, a procedural justice strategy will be difficult to enact.

A second possible limitation is that people of varying ethnicities, ages, gender or social classes may not agree on the criteria that define a fair procedure. If they do not, then it is not feasible to implement procedural strate-

gies in diverse environments. In such an event, everyone would agree that

they would defer to a fairly reached decision, but authorities would find it difficult to create a procedure that all parties would simultaneously judge to be fair. In this situation, the procedural model would be effective in theory but impossible to implement in practice.

Fortunately, ethnicity and other demographic characteristics seem to have very little influence on either whether people care about procedural fairness or on how people evaluate the fairness of procedures. In a study of

hypothetical interpersonal dispute situations, Lind, Huo, and Tyler (1994) use a study in which people are presented with a real or hypothetical dispute and asked how they would like to see that dispute resolved. The study is

designed to examine preferences for dispute resolution procedures among four ethnic groups in the United States-European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans. They find that there is a remarkable degree of consensus about people's preferences for va-

rying types of dispute resolution procedures. More importantly, their find-

ings show that procedural justice concerns are more important than either




outcome favorability or concerns about reducing conflict in determining preferences for procedures among the members of every demographic group. Demographic characteristics such as ethnicity and gender do not affect the relative importance of procedural justice concerns in determining procedural preferences-everyone cares about procedural justice.

Not only are people's preferences for using particular procedures essen- tially the same irrespective of ethnicity but so are the criteria that they use for determining whether procedures are fair. Tyler (1988) examined the influence of demographic characteristics on judgments about the fairness of personal experiences with the police and courts. He did so using a sample of 652 citizens in Chicago who had had recent personal experiences with the police or courts. The dependent variable in Tyler's analysis was the degree to which people evaluated the procedures used by the legal authorities during their recent experience to be fair. He found that people who varied in their age, gender, race, education, ideology (liberal-conservative), and income level used the same criteria to make procedural justice judgments.

While Tyler (1988) found that the demographic characteristics of the person involved in a dispute did not affect the criteria they used to make assessments of the fairness of procedures, the nature of the issue or problem involved was important. People did not see the same procedure as fair in resolving all problems. Hence, the crucial issue shaping views about procedural fairness was the nature of the problem, not the character of the person.

Tyler (1994a) presents a similar analysis of the influence of ethnicity on the criteria used to evaluate the fairness of procedures. Using the interviews with a random sample of 502 citizens in the San Francisco area that were already discussed in the study of affirmative action, he examines people's evaluations of the fairness of congressional decision-making procedures and finds no ethnic differences in the criteria people use to evaluate procedural justice. In fact, none of the demographic or attitudinal characteristics he tests (race, gender, education, income, age, or ideology) interact with procedural criteria in predicting procedural justice judgments. Similar findings are found in a study of people who were interviewed about past real disputes (Lind et al. 1994). The findings of that study show that there are only minor differences in how Americans, Germans, and Hong Kong Chi- nese evaluate the fairness of procedures.

Interestingly, a recent report on the future of the California courts identifies the lack of consensus about how people want the courts to resolve their disputes as one of the major problems that increased diversity poses for the legal system (Dockson 1993). This report was not based on research but on the speculations of legal authorities. The research reported here suggests that this concern with a lack of procedural consensus is overstated. The research outlined suggests that neither the importance that people place on




procedural justice nor the criteria they use to evaluate the fairness of procedures vary depending upon cultural background (see also Leung and Lind 1986). Consequently, it is not surprising that there is very little variation in the procedures that people of varying ethnicity prefer to use to resolve disputes (Lind et al. 1994).

Interestingly, important cross-cultural differences are found to occur for principles of distributive and retributive justice (e.g., Hamilton and Sanders 1992; Miller and Bersoff 1992; Murphy-Berman et al. 1984). In contrast to their broad differences in opinion about the correct outcome in a particular case (i.e., distributive justice), the studies just reviewed suggest that people seem to have relatively similar views about what constitutes a fair procedure for resolving a problem or dispute.

Should we be concerned about finding such large differences in people's views about distributive and retributive justice? The procedural justice approach suggests that, while such differences are real, they may not be central to the effectiveness of authorities. People will defer to authorities if those authorities follow fair procedures when they make public policies. Hence, it is the procedural justice of the policymaking process, rather than distributive justice as it is reflected in the outcome of those policies, that is central to the effectiveness of authorities.

If authorities make decisions in fair ways, their decisions are generally accepted among citizens. This does not mean that people are insensitive to the divergence of policies from their own sense of right and wrong. They are not. People recognize such discrepancies. However, they generally defer to authorities despite this recognition if the authorities are viewed as acting fairly when them make decisions.

An interesting illustration of this finding is provided by public dissatisfaction with the courts. The public is widely found to view the courts as being too lenient on criminals. Nonetheless the perceived obligation to obey the law and accept judicial decisions remains strong. Why? One reason is that while the public is dissatisfied with perceived leniency on crime and criminals, the public generally views the court as using fair procedures to make their decisions. Further, judges are widely judged to be neutral, honest, concerned about citizens, and respectful of citizens and their rights. Without this favorable procedural evaluation, public evaluations of the courts would probably be much lower.

The Impact of Changes in Society and the Community on the Effectiveness of Legal Authorities

The findings presented here suggest that when people evaluate legal authorities, they consider more than just their potential instrumental rewards and costs from the decisions or policies enacted by the courts. People




also consider how fairly those authorities treat the members of their social group, themselves included. Hence, authorities are able to gain acceptance for their decisions based on the fairness of their decision-making procedures. They define procedural justice using three primary criteria: the neutrality of their decision-making procedures, the trustworthiness of their motives, and the degree to which they treat people with dignity and respect. The authorities, in other words, have a noninstrumental basis for exercising authority and are thus able to handle differences in interests and values.

A key premise of the relational model of authority relations (Tyler and Lind 1992), as well as of the group-value model of procedural justice upon which it is based (Lind and Tyler 1988), is that people's concerns about the information communicated by fair procedures and respectful, dignified treatment are linked to issues of social identification. As is argued by social iden-

tity theory, the relational model assumes that people use groups as a source of information about themselves (Hogg and Abrams 1988, 1990; Tajfel 1982; Tajfel and Turner 1986). As salient and prototypical group representatives, group authorities communicate information about people's value to the larger group through their actions toward them (Hogg and Abrams 1988; Tyler and Lind 1992). Fair and respectful treatment acknowledges people's importance and status, while unfair and disrespectful treatment communicates marginality.

The argument that fairness is important because it communicates status is supported by the finding that people care about the relational aspects of the actions of authorities. In particular, people focus on the quality of their interpersonal treatment by authorities (Tyler 1994b; Tyler and Lind 1992). While neutrality and trustworthiness may plausibly be viewed as having both identity and resource antecedents, it is difficult to explain concerns about whether or not one receives treatment with respect and dignity from an instrumental perspective. On the other hand, such concerns seem quite plausibly related to people's efforts to use their treatment by authorities as information about their status in society. Hence, these findings suggest that there is more to authority relations than the favorability of decisions. Authorities are also important because they communicate to people that they are important and valued members of society. This information supports people's feelings of value and self-worth. As would be predicted by the relational model of procedural justice, people's treatment by authorities has been found to have an important impact on their evaluations of their worth to the group and, through it, their self-esteem (Koper et al. 1993; Tyler, Degoey, and Smith 1996; Vermunt et al. 1993).

If people were only interested in the degree to which they or their group gain desirable outcomes or resources, as suggested by instrumental models of conflict, we would expect personal self-esteem to be enhanced by winning. In fact, however, procedural justice studies show that self-esteem is




enhanced by receiving fair treatment. This is consistent with the relational argument that it is status that is central to people's concerns when they are dealing with society and social authorities.

Social Categories and Procedural Justice

The linkage between fair interpersonal treatment and issues of status suggests that there may be limits to people's concerns about relational issues. Whether authorities treat group members in a neutral, trustworthy, and respectful way should matter more strongly if the authorities are included within people's important reference groups. If the authorities are not part of an important reference group, how they treat people should have less impact on individuals, and hence, relational issues should be relatively less important. If an authority is not a member of a group to which we feel identified or emotionally connected, the way they treat us should have less importance for our thinking about our worth as people, so we should place less weight on receiving polite and respectful treatment by that authority.

In an experimental study illustrating this effect, the affiliation of an authority was experimentally manipulated to represent either an in-group (a member of the same university as the subjects) or an out-group (a member of a rival university). Judgments that they had been unfairly treated by that authority only influenced students' self-esteem when the authority represented their in-group, not when the authority represented an out-group (Or- tiz 1994). These results support the argument that procedural issues should be more important when people identify with the group the authority implementing those procedures represents.

Recent research supports the hypothesis that relational evaluations should be most important in interactions with the members of one's own

group. The findings show that when a conflict crosses group boundaries

(e.g., cultural boundaries), people define fairness in more strongly instrumental terms. Consider a study that examines the exercise of authority within and across ethnic categories (Tyler, Lind, and Huo 1995). The study investigates workers' experiences in resolving a dispute with their supervisors. They found that people evaluate authorities more strongly in terms of the fairness of the procedures they used to resolve the dispute and less

strongly in terms of instrumental issues, such as the favorability of their outcome, when those authorities are from their own ethnic group.

This research suggests a potentially important implication of the im-

pact of diversity on the operation of the legal system. On the one hand, people can include members of different ethnic groups within a larger shared collective category-"Americans." In this case, we would expect the

principles of procedural justice to be more important than instrumental evaluations when people are deciding whether or not to defer to legal




authorities. On the other hand, people may view members of ethnic groups that are different from their own as out-group members. In this case, we would expect instrumental evaluations to be more important when people are deciding whether or not to defer to legal authorities.

In addition to having implications for how people are affected by their treatment by others, the procedural justice model also has implications for how people treat others. For example, do we provide help to poor people in our community or support policies that promote health benefits for everyone? Here again, whether those others are viewed as members of one's group is central to how people treat them. The importance of group memberships for defining behavior toward others is illustrated by research on the "scope of justice" (Deutsch 1985; Opotow 1990). The "scope" of justice describes how group memberships define the relevant boundaries within which justice concerns are important (Deutsch 1985; Opotow 1990; Tyler and Lind 1992). Deutsch's basic argument is that people are primarily concerned about being fair to other people who are members of their own group- however they define their "group." For those who fall outside of a person's "scope of justice"-that is, their group-issues of fair play will be less relevant (Deutsch 1985; Opotow 1990).

The consequences of being excluded from the "scope of justice" are illustrated in a study showing that people have higher standards of justice for in-group members than for out-group members (Huo 1994). Huo explored the willingness of people within a group to provide various forms of resources to central members of their group and to people who belonged to disliked out-groups (for example, Nazis). While people consistently grant access to community resources, procedural rights, and equal and fair treatment to in-group members, they are less willing to do so for out-group members.

People are also more likely to deny resources to an out-group member than to deny them fair and polite treatment. This pattern provides further support for the procedural justice model. It suggests that people feel that the worst thing that can be done to someone is to deny them decent treatment as a human being. On the other hand, denying a person access to resources seems less serious.

This research suggests that group boundaries are important to authority relations in two ways. First, authorities can be included or excluded from people's definitions of their group, community, or society. If the authority is included within important reference groups, their behaviors and policies communicate status-relevant information. In other words, people care whether or not those authorities treat them fairly, since their views about themselves are shaped by how they are treated. However, if particular authorities are excluded from people's reference groups, their behavior toward citizens should be less strongly relevant to that person because they will not




view it as communicating information about the group to which they feel attached.

The behavior of in-group authorities also has broader implications. The treatment of any single group member can communicate, by inference, the attitudes and opinions of the authority toward all group members. Simi-

larly, if people view the targets of particular public policies as outside of their scope of justice, the fairness of the procedures used to reach those

policy decisions should not influence their opinions about them. How these "outsiders" are treated by authorities does not have any implications for how the authorities view the members of the in-group. In contrast, if the targets are included within a person's scope of justice because they are a member of a single inclusive group, then how those others are treated communicates

important information to everyone in the group. If the police, for example, brutalize a citizen, this carries an implied threat for all citizens-their rights may not be respected. On the other hand, if that citizen is a minority group member, then white citizens might view the police behavior as irrelevant to them.

Superordinate Identification and Authority Evaluations

The procedural justice model suggests that the effectiveness of democratic leaders should be facilitated when all citizens share a strong common identification with American society. In other words, a common superordinate identification should facilitate solutions to the problems of diversity within the larger society because the members of all groups will feel a common loyalty to the larger society of which they are all members. As a conse-

quence, everyone will respond to authorities in terms of issues of justice and

respect, rather than being willing to accept only decisions that benefit themselves or their group. However, as identification with different sub-

groups in a society takes on greater importance, intergroup relations within the superordinate group can take a destructive turn, because people view the members of other groups within their society as competitors in a world where not everyone's needs can be met at the same time.

The suggestion that superordinate identification facilitates group func-

tioning is distinct from the suggestion that people identify with any particular type of group. This argument should be equally true of identification with ethnic, racial, political, gender-based, or religious groups. In any of these cases, we would expect those people who identify with a particular group and its authorities to react to the policies or decisions made in that

group by evaluating the procedural justice through which those policies or decisions are being made. While I will use primarily examples about ethnic

groups, there is nothing about the argument I am making that requires that

people define their group memberships in ethnic terms.




Although the findings outlined suggest clearly that group boundaries are important in defining the range within which justice shapes deference to authorities, it is also important to recognize that this analysis is not particularly psychologically sophisticated. Studies suggest that using group membership per se, whether gender or ethnicity, to predict people's attitudes and behavior generally produces weak effects. Demographics only shape attitudes and behaviors if they are central to people's sense of themselves (Koch 1993). Hence, we will move to a more sensitive analysis that involves a consideration of people's identification with different types of social groups.

The key question is how the operation of procedural justice mechanisms is influenced by the strength of people's identification with the larger society and/or with subgroups within that society. The procedural justice model suggests that identification with the superordinate category the authority represents should facilitate the influence of procedural justice judgments on perceptions of legitimacy and on policy acceptance-attitudes and behaviors that benefit the group by making the job of legal authorities easier.

Social dilemma research illustrates how shared social categorizations can encourage group-oriented behavior (Kramer 1991; Wit 1989). Social dilemma situations are those in which a group's well-being and the individual's long-term self-interest require the restraint of individual short-term self-interest. For example, if people fish an area of the ocean until all the fish are gone, both the individual and the group suffer in the long term. Groups seek to prevent this outcome through making and enforcing rules that regulate the actions of individual people within the group.

When a common group membership is made salient to people in a social dilemma situation, the number of collectively oriented cooperative responses to social dilemmas, compared to individually oriented competitive responses, increases dramatically (Brewer and Kramer 1986; Wit 1989). When a common group membership is made salient, people prefer to maxi- mize their group's outcomes even if it might decrease their personal benefits (Brewer and Kramer 1986; Markovsky 1985).

Investigations of the occurrence of in-group bias (favoring one's own group over other groups) illustrate the same principle but focus on the relationship between groups who vary in the strength of their superordinate categorization (Gaertner et al. 1990; Gaertner et al. 1993). For instance, in one of their studies they find that a sample of high school students who describe themselves as Americans, in addition to providing a racial or ethnic identity, are less likely to discriminate between their own and other ethnic groups than are students who only mention their ethnic identity (Gaertner et al. 1994). In other words, when students identify themselves as members of a category that includes other ethnic subgroups, they are less likely to discriminate against those other groups. This research supports our




suggestion that identification with a superordinate category can facilitate a more positive orientation toward potential out-group members.

Although this research illustrates how identification can facilitate behavior that benefits the group, it has not explored how the role of procedural justice in shaping the willingness to accept decisions is influenced by the degree to which people identify with the superordinate group. Identification with a more inclusive social category should not only decrease in-group bias, it should also change how people define the importance and meaning of procedural justice. One effort to examine how identification influences the dynamics of reactions toward authorities focuses on a social dilemma situation of the type described, that is, a situation in which societies are dealing with managing the use of scarce resources-in this case water (Tyler and Degoey 1995). The study examines people's willingness to defer to and to empower authorities to deal with this scarcity problem.

Tyler and Degoey (1995) considered a naturally occurring social dilemma situation-the California water shortage-in which the government had an agency ("the water commission") that made rules about how water could be used legally in the city. They interviewed a random sample of 401 of the residents of the city of San Francisco in an effort to explore the antecedents of their judgments about the legitimacy of the water commission-the agency that makes rules of water allocation. They compare the influence of a combined index of procedural and relational concerns to the influence of judgments about the favorability of the decisions made by the commission on the willingness to accept the role of the water commission in making water use decisions. Their findings are shown in table 5. They indicate that people are more willing to view the authorities as legitimate and to accept their role in allocating water if they think those authorities are acting fairly. Further, identifying with the community facilitates the role of justice. The data shows that those people who identify more strongly with the community put more weight on fairness (B * C interaction is 0.26) and less weight on outcome favorability (A * C interaction is -0.22) when deciding how legitimate they think the water commission is.

The findings of Tyler and Degoey (1995) support the conclusions of prior procedural justice research. Procedural justice judgments about the actions of local regulatory authorities influence their legitimacy. Further, people are more willing to support giving authority to those officials if they act in procedurally fair way

The key analysis conducted by Tyler and Degoey is an exploration of the relationship between identification with the overall community and the role of procedural justice concerns in legitimizing authorities. The results suggest that those who identify more strongly with their "community" (in this case a political community representing a particular geographical area-the city of San Francisco) evaluate community authorities in more




TABLE 5 Identification with the Community and the Basis of Support for Government Authority

Water Commission is Support

Legitimate Commission as Authority Rule Maker

Main effects Decisions of water commission favorable to .06 .35*

person (A) Commission procedures fair (B) .43* .22* Identify with community (C) .03 -.02

Interactions A *C -.22* -.08 B *C .26* .21*

adj. R.-sq. 25%* 22%*

High scores indicate feeling that the commission is legitimate; supporting the commission; thinking its decisions are favorable; thinking its procedures are fair; and identifying with the community. Positive terms for the interactions indicate that more weight is being put on a factor when identification is high.

NOTE: N = 401. Starred entries are statistically significant.

strongly procedural terms. This interaction occurs in two distinct ways. First, people who identify more strongly with their community are less

strongly influenced by whether or not the rules made by the commission favor them when deciding whether or not they feel an obligation to obey those rules. Second, people who identify more strongly with their commu-

nity are more influenced by whether or not the commission makes its policies fairly when deciding whether or not to feel an obligation to obey those rules.

The finding that superordinate identification is linked to the weight given to a procedural justice focus when making evaluations of superordinate authorities is also supported by two other studies. Smith and Tyler (1996) study a sample of white residents in the San Francisco Bay area. These citizens are interviewed concerning their attitudes about public policies against workplace discrimination and in favor of redistributive economic programs ("affirmative action"). Their study explores the willingness of the advantaged to support congressional policies that benefit the disadvantaged. Respondents are asked to evaluate the fairness of congressional decision-making procedures, and their evaluations of those procedures are linked to their willingness to support congressional policies. The study also assessed the degree to which whites identify with a superordinate community-in this case "Americans." The study finds that an index of procedural




justice judgments generally has a strong relationship to policy endorsement. That is, those who feel that Congress makes decisions fairly are generally more willing to support government policies, irrespective of whether those policies favor them.

Further, as Tyler and Degoey (1995) found in the case of local regulatory authorities, in forming judgments about policy support, those who identify more strongly with the superordinate community ("America") rely more heavily on procedural-relational judgments and less heavily on instrumental-distributive judgments when deciding whether to support congressional policies. If respondents did not identify strongly with the overall American society, they decided whether to support congressional policies by evaluating whether those policies benefited them or their ethnic group (whites). However, if they identified strongly with American society, they decided whether to support congressional policies by evaluating whether Congress made decisions fairly (i.e., in neutral ways, with benevolent motives, and with respect for citizen rights). Again, as in the prior study of local regulatory authorities, leaders benefited from people's identification with the su-

perordinate group. In this case, however, the focus of identification is on national authorities.

A study of the employees in a multi-ethnic workforce (Huo et al. 1996) also shows that employees' reactions to how authorities-in this case their work supervisor-handled a work conflict are determined by the degree to which they identify with the work organization. People who identify highly with the work organization react to how their supervisor handles their conflict in terms of whether they are fairly treated. In contrast, people who

identify less strongly with their work organization evaluate their supervisors in term of whether they receive favorable or unfavorable outcomes.

The findings of the studies outlined illustrate how superordinate identification can enhance the effectiveness of authorities. Authorities benefit from people's identification with the group, organization, community, or so-

ciety they represent, since those who identify highly with the group evaluate authorities in terms of procedural justice issues, such as their neutrality and trustworthiness. Those who do not identify with the target group focus more strongly on whether the decisions of the authorities favor them. Of course, they may also be identifying with some other group (for example, women), that is not the focus of this study. Superordinate identification enhances the ability of authorities to elicit voluntary compliance with decisions that were not congruent with the short-term interests of particular group members. This makes it easier for legal authorities to fulfill their regulatory role.

One way that diversity or multiculturalism might diminish the ability of legal authorities to function is by lowering the level of identification that citizens feel with superordinate authorities. If people feel less strongly




identified with legal authorities, for whatever reason, this will diminish the ability of those authorities to be effective in their roles.

Subgroup Identification and Authority Relations

The superordinate group represented by a particular authority is just one of many different possible groups or social categories with which people might identify (Gaertner et al. 1993; Turner et al. 1987). People might also identify with smaller or subordinate groups that are included within the larger or superordinate group. In an increasingly diverse society such as America, there is a strong possibility that, for some people, identification with an ethnic subgroup might supersede identification with America. I also want to deal with the question of whether the ability of superordinate group identification to facilitate a procedural justice focus in evaluations of authorities is limited when people have strong attachments to subgroups within the larger group.

Past research has identified two categories of people that are of particular interest to the study of competing identities. The first category includes people who draw a greater sense of identification from the superordinate group and its authorities and institutions than they do from a particular subgroup. In essence, these people represent assimilators-they have for- saken subgroup loyalties and values in favor of the superordinate group. The second category includes people who draw a greater sense of identification from a subgroup than from the superordinate category. These people represent separatists-they have chosen to identify more closely with the subgroup and its values than with the superordinate category.

The distinction between assimilators and separatists suggests how group identification can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, if people identify strongly with a superordinate category (America) that includes all the subgroups, they will focus more strongly on procedural justice issues when evaluating legal authorities. In contrast, people who identify more with their subgroup than with the superordinate group may draw less of their sense of self from the larger society. Hence, they may be indifferent to the relational messages communicated by superordinate authorities via fair and respectful treatment. They may focus instead on the favorability of the outcomes they obtain.

In addition to assimilators and separatists, there is also a third category that is important to discussions of identification. This third group, which is labelled biculturalists, has been recently recognized in the ethnic identification literature and consists of those who identify strongly with both their superordinate category and their subgroup (Berry 1984; LaFromboise, Cole- man, and Gerton 1993).




A more comprehensive picture of the influence of identification can be obtained by examining all three of the groups outlined: the assimilators, the biculturalists. and the separatists. A consideration of both subgroup and su-

perordinate identification suggests four different categories. These categories are based on the premise that identification with a particular subgroup cate-

gory and a particular superordinate category can represent two separate in-

dependent continuums (Berry 1984; LaFromboise et al. 1993). For example, strong identification with a superordinate category does not require weak identification with the subgroup. The fourth category identifies with neither group. They are labelled the alienated.

Three groups, assimilators, separatists and biculturalists, are included in the analysis I will discuss. The fourth possibility, the alienated, is dropped from the analyses. The relational model of authority (Tyler and Lind 1992) assumes that people are motivated to belong to groups and does not provide theoretical predictions for individuals who attach little value to group mem-

berships. Hence, this group is not considered.

Biculturalists pose an interesting test of the effects of multiple levels of

group identification. There are three possibilities. The biculturalists could react as the separatists would and hence pose problems for those authorities who are unable to provide them with favorable outcomes. In contrast, they could react as the assimilators would and evaluate authorities in terms of

procedural justice issues rather than to the authorities' ability to meet their demands. A third possibility is that the psychological underpinnings of their reactions to authorities would not be dominated by either procedural justice or instrumental concerns but rather would be jointly and equally determined by both.

Of course, it is important not to carelessly put forward the suggestion that separatists are simply "selfish." Those people in this subgroup may feel this way because in the past others such as the authorities have not behaved as if the subgroup were legitimate in the eyes of the larger society or organization. For such people, procedural matters may seem like empty rhetoric- a sop being given to a group in lieu of the advantageous policies that other

groups have long enjoyed. Two studies have explored the dynamics of procedural justice among

assimilators, biculturalists, and separatists. They examine the extent to which the ability of authorities to function effectively is compromised by the existence of dual identities (biculturalists) and the dominance of sub-

group identity (separatists). In the study of 350 white respondents' attitudes toward affirmative action that has already been outlined (Smith and Tyler 1996), both identification with the superordinate category (America in general) and with a subordinate category (own racial group) is measured. Three distinct groups are identified: assimilators; biculturalists; and separatists. As- similators identified more strongly with "Americans in general" than with




their own racial group. Biculturalists identified equally strongly with both

groups. Finally, separatists identified most strongly with their own racial

group.

Figure 1 shows the basis of policy endorsement within each of these three groups in the Smith and Tyler (1996) study. The numbers shown on the figure are beta weights reflecting the strength of the relationship between outcome favorability, procedural justice, and the willingness to ac-

cept a public policy. To create the numbers, willingness to accept the public policy was the dependent variable in a regression equation and was predicted by outcome favorability and procedural justice.

The findings shown in figure 1 suggest that policy endorsement is better predicted by procedural fairness than by outcome favorability among the assimilators (people identify primarily with America) and the biculturalists

(people who equally identify with America and with their ethnic or racial

group) but not among separatists (people who identify primarily with their ethnic or racial group). Among separatists, policy support is dominated by instrumental judgments about the degree to which the policy favors the

respondent and their group. It is important to note that outcome

favorability is also an important factor among assimilators, at least more

important than among biculturalists.

The findings of the Smith and Tyler study suggest that the procedural justice approach to bridging differences may have a clear limit. It is less successful among separatists. On the other hand, the findings also suggest that assimilation and hence the relinquishing of subgroup identification is not necessary for a procedural strategy to be effective. Assimilation and biculturalism lead to a very similar psychological basis for reactions to group authorities-a focus on procedural and relational issues.

One limitation of the Smith and Tyler study is that it examines ab- stract policy preferences. What about the willingness to accept the specific decisions of authorities in concrete everyday interactions? A further limitation is the focus on a single racial group-white Americans. This latter limitation is particularly problematic since one of the primary concerns about increasing diversity is the extent to which ethnic minorities are more loyal to their subgroup than to the superordinate group (America). Hence, it is important to examine whether a procedural justice strategy can work among members of ethnic minority groups.

To address these limitations, Huo et al. (1996) investigated 305 employees' evaluations of their experience in conflicts with their work supervisor. A deliberate effort was made to recruit respondents from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. In the study, we interviewed employees of the Univer- sity of California at Berkeley-a multicultural workforce. The employees were recruited through ethnic employee associations that represented a vari- ety of ethnic groups, including European Americans, Asian Americans,




FIGURE 1

Willingness of assimilators, biculturalists, and separatists to accept a public policy, depending on perceptions of outcome favorability and procedural fairness (beta weights).

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12 l

0.1_

0.08 0.06 1i·

0.04_/, ' Lt .X 0.02-/

America primary Equal Ethnicity primary (assimilator) (biculturalist) (separatists)

I 0 Outcome favorability M Procedural fairness I

African Americans, and Hispanic Americans. This procedure was used in an effort to find respondents high in ethnic identification. Each respondent was interviewed about a recent personal experience with their supervisor concerning an important work-related issue. In this analysis, procedural justice concerns are distinguished from the favorability of decisions, and the

importance of each in shaping willing deference to the decisions of the su-

pervisor is compared. Like Smith and Tyler's study (1996), this study introduces issues of

superordinate and subgroup identification. Employees are divided into three

groups: the assimilators, the biculturalists, and separatists. Analysis within each subgroup is shown in figure 2. As in the prior figure, the numbers shown are beta weights reflecting the strength of association between judgments of outcome favorability and procedural fairness, both entered into a

regression equation together, and the willingness to accept decisions among the members of a particular group. Those groups are defined by people's identification with the organization and with their ethnic subgroup.

The results indicate that both the assimilators and those who are bicultural rely on procedural justice judgments in reacting to decisions made by




FIGURE 2

Willingness of assimilators, biculturalists, and separatists voluntarily to

accept third-party decisions, depending on perceptions of outcome

favorability and procedural fairness (beta weights).

0.8 -

0.7-

0.6-

0.5-

0.4-

0.3

0.2

0.1 --

0 Pw

Organization primary Equal Ethnicity primary (assimilators) (biculturalists) (separatists)

0 Outcome favorability m Procedural fairness

their supervisors. Separatists, however, put greater weight on the instrumental index. The findings demonstrate that superordinate identification is es- sential to using a relational strategy. The assimilated rely primarily on procedural fairness judgments when making decisions about whether or not to accept decisions (beta = 0.50), as do the biculturalists (beta = 0.55). Further, they suggest that identification with a subgroup does not pose a problem for societal authorities as long as there is also a social bond with the superordinate group.

CONCLUSIONS

The question addressed in this paper is whether there are strategies that legal authorities can adopt to effectively manage their task of social regulation amid diversity. Two such mechanisms are identified in the research outlined above. The first is general support for the argument that legitimacy is linked to overall evaluations of procedural justice and to aspects of the quality of treatment during decision making that shape

I-111- x" *c7




procedural justice judgments (relational judgments of neutrality, trustworthiness, and status recognition). A procedural focus stemming from the relational model of authority is the key to effectively managing the task of social regulation amid diversity. In other words, we want citizens to judge authorities in procedural justice terms, since this facilitates the task of social

regulation. Second, the ability of authorities to function in a procedurally just way

is enhanced when people have a strong social bond with the superordinate group the authorities represent. The findings also suggest that, in order for authorities to function effectively, people do not have to abandon their sub-

group identities. Those who assimilate and those who are bicultural appear to share a similar psychology; their evaluations of authorities stem mainly from concerns about their relationship to the group, rather than concerns about the favorability of their outcomes. However, separatists may pose a

problem for authorities. This group bases their evaluations of authorities on short-term instrumental concerns (i.e., on the favorability of the outcomes the authority gives them). Consequently, unless separatists are given the outcomes they seek, they will evaluate authorities negatively and resist com-

plying with the decisions the authorities make.

Because superordinate identification is so important to the effectiveness of a procedural justice strategy, the question of how to enhance the

quality of the social bond people have with the superordinate group should be addressed. One way to enhance identification with the superordinate group is to encourage children to appreciate and adopt the values of the

superordinate group-that is, to engage in "socialization" into society via civics classes, by having children pledge allegiance to flag, and in other

ways. This socialization process can be achieved through public institutions such as the education system.

A second way to develop superordinate identification is to encourage the use of a common language. While the merits of a bilingual education are a source of much debate, the findings outlined suggest that learning two or more languages should not negatively impact on the development of societal identification, as long as children also learn the dominant language. In other words, it is more important that children do learn English than that

they do not learn a second language. A third way to develop superordinate identification is to show that

groups included within the larger category (as well as individual members) are valued and worthy of respect (Thompson, Kray, and Lind 1994). The

police and courts with whom people deal act as agents of the state and

communicate to those with whom they deal whether those citizens are valued and respected within society. If they communicate respect, citizens will

identify with authorities and will increasingly adopt a procedural model for

judging their actions.




The strategy of supporting both superordinate and subgroup identification, coined "balanced multiculturalism" by Moghaddam and Solliday (1991), may be the most tricky to pursue. On the one hand, perhaps the best way to engender feelings of personal respect and trust is to demonstrate respect and trust for one's group. On the other hand, an increased emphasis on subgroup memberships may inadvertently communicate that one's ethnic group membership is more important (and therefore, a more valuable source of information about one's self-worth) than one's national group membership. Furthermore, the increased salience of particular group memberships may begin the invidious cycle of intergroup comparisons and competition.

Finally, people's identification with the superordinate group is likely to be encouraged when they see other members of their own ethnic group, gender, or religion included within the authority structure of society. Inclu- sion both further indicates respect for one's group and promotes judgments of neutrality and trustworthiness. It seems likely that the inclusion of minority group members as legal authorities will further enhance the viability of legal institutions and promote the perceived legitimacy of the law.

The research reviewed presents some interesting findings about the effects of biculturalism-identifying equally strongly with both the superordinate group and a subgroup. If the effective exercise of authority requires assimilation, as is often presumed in public discussions of the possible Bal- kanization effects of multiculturalism, then the traditional "melting pot" model is important. It may be, as Rawls (1993) provocatively suggests, that it is difficult for a society to survive without a single set of values. On the other hand, if the bicultural model is supported, there is a substantially stronger possibility that a democratic society can flourish when people maintain loyalty to subgroups, as long as they also identify with the larger society.

Further, it has been suggested that bicultural identity also has positive psychological effects for the individual (LaFromboise et al. 1993). Ethnic subgroup identities are particularly important to people's sense of self and consequently difficult to suppress (Gurin and Epps 1975). Our findings from the preliminary studies outlined suggest that as long as a strong sense of superordinate identity is maintained, subgroup identities need not be relin- quished in order for authorities to effectively manage relations among subgroups. Hence, it appears that future discussions of ways to manage a diverse society should be more open to issues related to subgroup identity.

The research I have outlined also has important implications for issues of democratization. As the nature of American society changes toward a mosaic model, the question of whether and how democratic processes can be maintained becomes central to discussions of public policy. While much has been written about the probable effects of ethnic and racial subgrouping




on American society and there are many examples of the political and social difficulties which such subgrouping can pose in the recent events that have occurred in Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, and Lebanon, there is very little empirical research on the effects of subgroup identification on the functioning of stable democracies such as the United States. The research reported in this paper examined those effects upon two central judgments-the legitimacy of authorities and policy acceptance. While focused on this issue, the research is intended to examine more broadly how the

functioning of democratic authority is influenced by the development of

subgroup identifications.

Bridging differences in values and interests that are linked to identifi- able subgroups is a difficult but not impossible challenge for superordinate authorities. Our research suggests that if authorities use fair procedures, they can effectively manage internal diversity.

However, the same findings suggest that there may be limits to the effectiveness of a procedural justice strategy. People who identify strongly with the superordinate category place more importance on procedural-relational concerns and consequently are more likely to accept outcomes or

policies that are not in their personal or group interests. People who identify less strongly with the superordinate category more importance on instrumental concerns and are less strongly influenced by whether or not they are

fairly treated by authorities. If the outcomes or policies are inconsistent with their personal or group interests, they are less likely to accept them. How-

ever, this problem only occurs when people identify more strongly with their subgroup than with the superordinate category. People who identify equally strongly with both their subgroup and the superordinate category still rely on procedural-relational evaluations of authorities. In summary, this research suggests how we can avoid the destructive consequences of ethnic divisions within society without sacrificing support for ethnic

diversity.

REFERENCES

Almond, G. A., and S. Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Berry, J. W. 1984. Cultural Relations in Plural Societies: Alternatives to Segregation and Their Sociopsychological Implications. In Groups in Contact, ed. N. Miller and M.

Brewer, 11-27. San Diego: Academic Press. Brewer, M. B., and R. M. Kramer. 1986. Choice Behavior in Social Dilemmas: Effects of

Social Identity, Group Size and Decision Framing. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 50:543-49. California. Department of Finance. 1993. Projected Total Population of California Counties:

1990 to 2040. Sacramento: Department of Finance. Cox, T. 1993. Cultural Diversity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler. Deutsch, M. 1985. Distributive Justice. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.




DiPalma, G. 1990. To Craft Democracies: An Essay on Democratic Transitions. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Dockson, R. R. 1993. Justice in the Balance: Report of the Commission on the Future of the California Courts. San Francisco: Supreme Court of California.

Fullerton, H. N. 1987. Labor Force Projections: 1986-2000. Monthly Labor Review, 19-29.

Gaertner, S. L., J. F. Dovidio, P. A. Anastasio, B. A. Bachman, and M. C. Rust. 1993. The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of In- tergroup Bias. In The European Review of Social Psychology, ed. W Stroebe and M. Hewstone, 4:1-26. New York: Wiley.

Gaertner, S. L., J. A. Mann, J. F. Dovidio, A. J. Murrell, and M. Pomare. 1990. How Does Cooperation Reduce Intergroup Bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 59:692-704.

Gaertner, S. L., M. C. Rust, J. F. Dovidio, B. A. Bachman, and P. A. Anastasio. 1994. The Contact Hypothesis: The Role of a Common Ingroup Identity on Reducing Intergroup Bias. Small Group Research 22:267-77.

Gibson, J. L., and G. A. Caldeira. 1996. The Legal Culture of Europe. Law and Society Review 30:55-86.

Gibson, J. L., R. M. Duch, and K. L. Tedin. 1992. Democratic Values and the Transfor- mation of the Soviet Union. Journal of Politics 54:329-71.

Greenberg, J. 1990. Looking Fair versus Being Fair: Managing Impressions of Organiza- tional Justice. Research in Organizational Behavior 12:111-57.

Gurin, P., and E. Epps. 1975. Black Consciousness, Identity and Achievement. New York: Wiley.

Hamilton, V. L., and J. Sanders. 1992. Everyday Justice: Responsibility and the Individual in Japan and the United States. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Hogg, M. A., and D. Abrams. 1988. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.

.1990. Social Motivation, Self-Esteem and Social Identity. In Social Identity The- ory: Constructive and Critical Advances, ed. D. Abrams and M. A. Hogg. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Huntington, S. P. 1984. Will More Countries Become Democratic? Political Science Quarterly 99:193-218.

Huo, Y. J. 1994. Are There Limits to Justice? Exclusionary Effects in Justice Behavior. Master's thesis, University of California-Berkeley.

Huo, Y. J., H. J. Smith, T. R. Tyler, and E. A. Lind. 1996. Superordinate Identification, Subgroup Identification, and Justice Concerns: Is Separation the Problem; Is Assim- ilation the Answer? Psychological Science 7:40-45.

Inglehart, R. 1990. Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Johnston, W. 1991. Global Work Force 2000: The New World Labor Market. Harvard Business Review 69:115-27.

Kelman, H. C., and L. Hamilton. 1989. Obedience to Authority. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Koch, J. W. 1993. Is Group Membership a Prerequisite for Group Identification? Political Behavior 15:49-60.

Koper, G., D. Van Knippenberg, F. Bouhuijs, R. Vermunt, and H. Wilke. 1993. Procedu- ral Fairness and Self-Esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology 21:630-50.

Kramer, R. M. 1991. Intergroup Relations and Organizational Dilemmas: The Role of Categorization Processes. Research in Organizational Behavior 13:191-228.




LaFromboise, T., H. L. K. Coleman, and J. Gerton. 1993. The Psychological Impact of Biculturalism: Evidence and Theory. Psychological Bulletin 114:395-412.

Lea, J.A., H. J. Smith, and T. R. Tyler. 1994. Predicting Support for Compensatory Polices: Why, Why and How. Paper on file with author.

Leung, K, and E. A. Lind. 1986. Procedural Justice and Culture: Effects of Culture, Gen- der and Investigator Status on Procedural Preferences. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology 50:1134-40.

Lieberson, S., and M. C. Waters. 1987. The Location of Racial and Ethnic Groups in the United States. Sociological Forum 2:780-810.

Lind, E. A., Y. J. Huo, and T. R. Tyler. 1994.... And Justice for All: Ethnicity, Gender and Preferences for Dispute Resolution Procedures. Law and Human Behavior 18:269-89.

Lind, E. A., C. T. Kulik, M. Ambrose, and M. V. de Vera Park. 1993. Individual and Corporate Dispute Resolution: Using Procedural Fairness as a Decision Heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly 38:224-51.

Markovsky, B. 1985. Multilevel Justice Theory. American Sociological Review 50:822-39.

MacCoun, R. J. 1993. Drugs and the Law: A Psychological Analysis of Drug Prohibition. Psychological Bulletin 113:497-512.

Miller, J. G., and D. M. Bersoff. 1992. Culture and Moral Judgment: How Are Conflicts between Justice and Interpersonal Responsibilities Resolved? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62:541-54.

Moghaddam, F. M., and E. A. Solliday. 1991. "Balanced Multiculturalism" and the Chal-

lenge of Peaceful Coexistence in Pluralistic Societies. Psychology and Developing So- cieties 3:51-72.

Murphy-Berman, V., J. J. Berman, P. Singh, A. Pachauri, and P. Kumar. 1984. Factors

Affecting Allocation to Needy and Meritorious Recipients: A Cross-Cultural Com-

parison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:1267-72.

Nagin, D. S., and R. Paternoster. 1991. The Preventive Effects of the Perceived Risk of Arrest: Testing an Expanded Conception of Deterrence. Criminology 29:561-85.

Opotow, S. 1990. Deterring Moral Exclusion. Journal of Social Issues 46:173-89. Ortiz, D. J. 1994. When Do Outcomes Matter? Group Membership, Self-Esteem and

Justice Evaluations. Honors thesis, University of California-Berkeley. Paternoster, R. 1989. Decisions to Participate in and Desist from Four Types of Common

Delinquency. Law and Society Review 23:7-40. Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ross, H. L. 1982. Deterring the Drinking Driver: Legal Policy and Social Control. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.

Roth, J. A., and J. T. Scholz. 1989. Taxpayer Compliance. Vol. 2, Social Science Perspec- tives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Roth, J. A., J. T. Scholz, and A. D. Witte. 1989. Taxpayer Compliance. Vol. 1, An Agenda for Research. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rubin, J. Z. 1980. Experimental Research on Third-Party Intervention in Conflict: To- ward Some Generalizations. Psychological Bulletin 87:379-91.

Scheingold, S. A. 1974. The Politics of Rights. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. 1992. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural

Society. New York: Norton.

Smith, H. J., and T. R. Tyler. 1996. Justice and Power: When Will Justice Concerns

Encourage the Advantaged to Support Policies Which Redistribute Economic Re- sources and the Disadvantaged to Willingly Obey the Law? European Journal of So- cial Psychology 26:171-200.




Tajfel, H. 1982. Human Groups and Social Categories. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. 1986. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. S. Worchel. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Taylor, D. M., and F. M. Moghaddam. 1994. Theories of Intergroup Relations. New York: Praeger.

Thibaut, J., and L. Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Thompson, L., L. Kray, and E. A. Lind. 1994. The Bright and Dark Side of Group Identity. Paper presented at the Annual Society for Experimental Social Psychology Convention, Lake Tahoe, Calif.

Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. Reicher, and M. S. Wetherell. 1987. Redis- covering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Tyler, T. R. 1988. What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures. Law and Society Review 22:301-55.

. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

. 1994a. Governing Amid Diversity: The Effect of Fair Decision-Making Proce- dures on the Legitimacy of Government. Law and Society Review 28:809-31.

. 1994b. Psychological Models of the Justice Motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:850-63.

Tyler, T. R., and P. Degoey. 1995. Collective Restraint in a Social Dilemma Situation: The Influence of Procedural Justice and Community Identification on the Empow- erment and Legitimation of Authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:482-97.

Tyler, T. R., and E. A. Lind. 1992. A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. M. Zanna, 25:115-91. New York: Academic Press.

Tyler, T. R. and K. M. McGraw. 1986. Ideology and the Interpretation of Personal Expe- rience: Procedural Justice and Political Quiescence. Journal of Social Issues 42:115-28.

Tyler, T. R., and G. Mitchell. 1994. Legitimacy and the Empowerment of Discretionary Legal Authority: The United States Supreme Court and Abortion Rights. Duke Law Journal 43:703-815.

Tyler, T. R., P. Degoey, and H. J. Smith. 1996. Understanding Why the Justice of Group Procedures Matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:913-30.

Tyler, T. R., E. A. Lind, and Y. J. Huo. 1995. Culture and Reactions to Authority: Social Categorization Effects on the Psychology of Authority. Paper on file with author.

Vermunt, R., A. Wit, K. van den Bos, and A. Lind. 1993. The Effect of Inaccurate Procedure on Protest: The Mediating Role of Perceived Unfairness and Situational Self-Esteem. Paper on file with author.

Wit, A. P. 1989. Group Efficiency and Fairness in Social Dilemmas: An Experimental Gaming Approach. Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.



Documents

Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal Authorities