Patterns of Exchange, Justice Evaluations, and Group Identification across Two Forms of Exchange

• In Event: 4244 - Engaging Social Psychology in the Pursuit of Social Justice

Abstract

Research shows that despite negotiated exchanges being more procedurally just than reciprocal exchanges, structurally disadvantaged individuals tend to evaluate exchange partners as less fair in negotiated exchange networks. It also shows that the stability of exchange affects fairness perceptions, with individuals viewing more stable exchange patterns as more just. The current research brings together these heretofore separate findings to examine how patterned versus unpatterned exchange behaviors affect justice evaluations in reciprocal and negotiated exchange networks. Results from a laboratory experiment show that consistent with prior work, structurally disadvantaged actors view their exchange partners as less fair when they have been exchanging via negotiation rather than reciprocation. They also show that this effect is due in part to differences in perceptions of uncertainty that arise across the two forms of exchange, and that these effects are conditioned by whether the advantaged partners exchange in patterned ways. These fairness evaluations matter because as we show, they affect group identification.

Authors

• Scott V. Savage, University of Houston

• Jacob Apkarian, CUNY, York College

• Hyomin Park, Sungkyunkwan University