Self-evaluations and the framing of unfair treatment

描述(由申请人提供)：不公正的感觉与 更大的压力、抑郁、酗酒、工作场所暴力、盗窃、骚乱和 集体抗议。几个社会正义模型提出 这种不公正对自我评价的威胁如此之大，以至于人们有动力 贬低或否认它。 根据集团价值模型，自我评估与正义挂钩 因为特别是程序正义，将象征性信息传达给 人们谈论他们对集团的价值。当当局公平对待人们时， 他们传达地位和重要性，但当当局对待人们 不公平的是，他们传达的是边缘和排斥，然而，人们应该 最关心治疗质量的是权威代表的群体 对他们的认同感和自我意识来说很重要，如果这个群体对 他们的认同感，那么治疗质量不应该影响态度 和行为。拟议研究的第一个目的是利用实验室 学生日常生活的实验与事件相关抽样研究 与大学当局互动以确认基本原因 集团价值模型的命题。第二个目的是探索为什么 外派权威机构的不公平对待并不会减少自我评估。 首先，人们可能会认为，无论他们的行为如何，外派权力机构都是 比组内当局更不合法(因此，任何负面 信息打折)。第二，他们可以充当团体代表 而不是作为独特的个体。发生在他们身上的事情可能会发生在任何 他们组的成员(因此，任何负面信息都不是 与个人有关)。然而，无论人们是否低估了个人相关性 外派权威的行为可能取决于集体 与组间关系相关联的表示法。如果我们可以 理解为什么人们对同一种行为的反应与在群体中不同， 在权威人士之外，我们可能更好地理解人们何时感到有权 面对不公正，以及当他们可能简单地接受它的时候。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Feelings of injustice are associated with greater stress, depression, alcoholism, workplace violence, theft, rioting and collective protest. Several social justice models propose that injustice is so threatening to self-evaluations that people are motivated to minimize or deny it. According to the Group-Value model, self-evaluations are linked to justice because procedural justice, in particular, communicates symbolic information to people about their value to the group. When authorities treat people fairly, they communicate status and importance but when authorities treat people unfairly, they communicate marginality and exclusion However, people should care most about treatment quality when the group the authority represents is important to their sense of identity and self If the group is not important to their sense of identity, then treatment quality should not influence attitudes and behavior. The first purpose of the proposed research is to use laboratory experiments and an event-contingent sampling study of students' daily interactions with university authorities to confirm the basic causal propositions of the Group-Value model. The second purpose is to explore why unfair treatment by an outgroup authority does not diminish self-evaluations. First, people might view outgroup authorities, regardless of their behavior, as less legitimate than ingroup authorities (and therefore, any negative information is discounted). Second, they may act as group representatives rather than as unique individuals. What happens to them could happen to any member of their group (and therefore, any negative information is not personally relevant). However, whether people discount the personal relevance of an outgroup authority's behavior may depend on the collective representations associated with the intergroup relationship. If we can understand why people react differently to the same behavior from ingroup and outgroup authorities, we might better understand when people feel empowered to confront injustice and when they might simply accept it.