Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:34:53.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2023

Kees van den Bos
Kees van den Bos
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Fair Process Effect
Overcoming Distrust, Polarization, and Conspiracy Thinking
 , pp. 131 - 158
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W. G., Craig, T., & Gregory, L. (1999). Beliefs in conspiracies. Political Psychology, 20, 637–647.Google Scholar
Abelson, R. P. (1963). Computer simulation of “hot cognitions.” In Tomkins, S. S. & Messick, S. (Eds.), Computer simulation and personality: Frontier of psychological theory (pp. 277–298). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1998). The human amygdala in social judgment. Nature, 393 , 470–474.Google Scholar
Albarracin, D., Albarracin, J., Chan, M.-p. S., & Hall Jamieson, K. (2021). Creating conspiracy theories: How our thoughts are shaped. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Albright, M. (2018). Fascism: A warning. London: William Collins.Google Scholar
Alesina, A., & La Ferrera, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85, 207–234.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1968). The historical background of modern social psychology. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–80). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–46). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ansems, L. F. M., Van den Bos, K., & Mak, E. (2020). Speaking of justice: A qualitative interview study on perceived procedural justice among defendants in criminal cases. Law and Society Review, 54, 643–679.Google Scholar
Ansems, L. F. M., Van den Bos, K., & Mak, E. (2021). The importance of perceived procedural justice among defendants with a non-Western background involved in Dutch criminal cases. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 5382.Google Scholar
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or move on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–668.Google Scholar
Aronson, E. (1972). The social animal. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2013). Social psychology (8th ed., international edition). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bal, M., & Van den Bos, K. (2010). The role of perpetrator similarity in reactions toward innocent victims. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 957–969.Google Scholar
Bal, M., & Van den Bos, K. (2012). Blaming for a better future: Future orientation and associated intolerance of personal uncertainty lead to harsher reactions toward innocent victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 835–844.Google Scholar
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blind spot: Hidden biases of good people. New York: Delacorte.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817–827.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Philosophical ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bednara, J. (2021). Polarization, diversity, and democratic robustness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2113843118.Google Scholar
Begeny, C. T., Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., & Ryan, M. K. (2021). Being treated fairly in groups is important, but not sufficient: The role of distinctive treatment in groups, and its implications for mental health. PLoS ONE, 16, e0251871.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bies, R. J. (2015). Interactional justice: Looking backward, looking forward. In Cropanzano, R. S. & Ambrose, M. L. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of justice in work organizations (pp. 89–107). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki, R., Sheppard, B. H., & Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199–218.Google Scholar
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of revenge. In Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the workplace, Volume 2: From theory to practice (pp. 197–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Binnendyk, J., & Pennycook, G. (2022). Intuition, reason, and conspiracy beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101387.Google Scholar
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bost, P. R., & Prunier, S. G. (2013). Rationality in conspiracy beliefs: The role of perceived motive. Psychological Reports, 113, 118–128.Google Scholar
Boudrias, J. S., Brunet, L., Morin, A. J. S., Savoie, A., Plunier, P., & Cacciatore, G. (2010). Empowering employees: The moderating role of perceived organisational climate and justice. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42, 201–211.Google Scholar
Bovens, M., & Wille, A. (2011). Politiek vertrouwen in Nederland: Tijdelijke dip of definitieve daling? In Andeweg, R. & Thomassen, J. (Eds.), Democratie doorgelicht: Het functioneren van de Nederlandse democratie (pp. 21–43). Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Bradford, B. (2011). Voice, neutrality and respect: Use of victim support services, procedural fairness and confidence in the criminal justice system. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11, 345–366.Google Scholar
Braley, A., Lenz, G., Adjodah, D., Rahnama, H., & Pentland, A. (2022). The subversion dilemma: Why voters who cherish democracy participate in democratic backsliding. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1766479/v1.Google Scholar
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999–1024.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.Google Scholar
Brimbal, L., Bradford, B., Jackson, J., Hartwig, M., & Joseph, E. (2020). On the importance of a procedurally fair organizational climate for openness to change in law enforcement. Law and Human Behavior, 44, 394–411.Google Scholar
Brockner, J. (1990). Scope of justice in the workplace: How survivors react to co-worker layoffs. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 95–106.Google Scholar
Brockner, J. (1994). Perceived fairness and survivors’ reactions to layoffs, or how downsizing organizations can do well by doing good. Social Justice Research, 7, 345–363.Google Scholar
Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: High procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27, 58–76.Google Scholar
Brockner, J. (2010). A contemporary look at organizational justice: Multiplying insult times injury. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brockner, J. (2016). The process matters: Engaging and equipping people for success. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Fransesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gómez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The moderating influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300–315.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., Fishman, A. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2008). When does high procedural fairness reduce self-evaluations following unfavorable outcomes? The moderating effect of prevention focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 187–200.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Magner, N., Folger, R., Umphress, E., Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., Magner, M., & Siegel, P. (2003). High procedural fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 51–68.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., Reed, T., & Bjorgvinsson, S. (1998). The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 394–407.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2005). How, when, and why does outcome favorability interact with procedural fairness? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace (pp. 525–554). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. (2009). A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management, 35 , 327–347.Google Scholar
Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 225.Google Scholar
Brugman, D., Oskam, H., & Oosterlaken, A. (2010, May). Moral identity and the relationship between moral judgment and antisocial behavior in adolescents. Paper presented at the Second Conference of the Netherlands Society of Development Psychologists, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Calvert, R. (1995). Rational actors, equilibrium and social institutions. In Knight, J. & Sened, I. (Eds.), Explaining social institutions (pp. 58–60). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Casper, J. D., Tyler, T. R., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law and Society Review, 22 , 483–507.Google Scholar
Castaldo, S., Premazzi, K., & Zerbini, F. (2010). The meaning(s) of trust: A content analysis on the diverse conceptualizations of trust in scholarly research on business relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 657–668.Google Scholar
Čehajić-Clancy, S., & Bilewicz, M. (2021). Moral-exemplar intervention: A new paradigm for conflict resolution and intergroup reconciliation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30, 335–342.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2022, March 11). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4046264.Google Scholar
Cichocka, A., Marchlewska, M., & Biddlestone, M. (2022). Why do narcissists find conspiracy theories so appealing? Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101386.Google Scholar
Cichocka, A., Marchlewska, M., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2016). Does self-love or self-hate predict conspiracy beliefs? Narcissism, self-esteem, and the endorsement of conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 157–166.Google Scholar
Clayton, K., & Willer, R. (2021). Endorsements from republican politicians can increase confidence in U.S. elections. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3961104.Google Scholar
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.Google Scholar
Coleman, P. T. (2021). The way out: How to overcome toxic polarization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice: Where do we stand? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace (pp. 589–619). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 , 909–927.Google Scholar
Crimston, D., Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., & Bastian, B. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 636–653.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2012). The imagined contact hypothesis. In Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 125–182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In Greenberg, J. & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 119–151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2015). Organizational justice: Where we have been and where we are going. In Cropanzano, R. S. & Ambrose, M. L. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of justice in work organizations (pp. 3–13). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34–48.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1019–1024.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 317–372). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., Massaro, S., & Becker, W. J. (2017). Deontic justice and organizational neuroscience. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 733–754.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 193–233.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R. S., Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Grandey, A. A. (2000). Doing justice to workplace emotions. In Ashkanasy, N., Hartel, C., & Zerbe, W. (Eds.), Emotions at work (pp. 49–62). Westport, CT: Quorum.Google Scholar
Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 1–39.Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. London: Routledge & Paul.Google Scholar
Das, S., Echambadi, R., McCardle, M., & Luckett, M. (2003). The effect of interpersonal trust, need for cognition, and social loneliness on shopping, information seeking and surfing on the web. Marketing Letters, 14, 185–202.Google Scholar
De Lange, J. (2007). The impact of the Staub model on policy making in Amsterdam regarding polarization and radicalization. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 361–364.Google Scholar
De Waal, F. (2005). Our inner ape: A leading primatologist explains why we are who we are. New York: Riverhead.Google Scholar
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 54–58.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2 , 265–279.Google Scholar
Dogruyol, B., Alper, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2019). The five-factor model of the moral foundations theory is stable across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 151 , 109547.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2023). What are conspiracy theories? A definitional approach to their correlates, consequences, and communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 271–298.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26 , 538–542.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1979). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: Free Press. (Original work published in 1897 as Le suicide: Étude de sociologie.)Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York: Simon and Schuster. (Original work published in 1895 as Les règles de la méthode sociologique.)Google Scholar
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 13–29.Google Scholar
Einstein, K. L., & Glick, D. M. (2015). Do I think BLS data are BS? The consequences of conspiracy theories. Political Behavior, 37, 679–701.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 294–300.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H. A. M., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C., & Mauro, R. (1998). Psychology and law. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 684–732). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ely, J. H. (1980). Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Enders, A., Farhart, C., Miller, J., Uscinski, J., Saunders, K., & Drochon, H. (in press). Are Republicans and conservatives more likely to believe conspiracy theories? Political Behavior.Google Scholar
Enders, A. M., Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C. A., Seelig, M. I., Wuchty, S., Murthi, M. N., Premaratne, K., & Funchion, J. R. (2021). Do conspiracy beliefs form a belief system? Examining the structure and organization of conspiracy beliefs. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9, 255–271.Google Scholar
Estaji, M., & Zhaleh, K. (2022). The enactment of classroom justice through explicit instruction: Deciphering the changes in English as a foreign language teachers’ perceptions and practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 821763.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (2004). From empire to community. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Evans, A. M., & Krueger, J. I. (2009). The psychology (and economics) of trust. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1003–1017.Google Scholar
Fallon, R. H. Jr. (2018). Law and legitimacy in the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández, S., Gaviria, E., Halperin, E., Agudo, R., …, & Saguy, T. (2022). The protective effect of agency on victims of humiliation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104375.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Finkel, N. J. (2001). Not fair! The typology of commonsense unfairness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Social cognition: From brains to culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement of experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.Google Scholar
Folger, R. (Ed.). (1984). The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Folger, R. (1986). Mediation, arbitration, and the psychology of procedural justice. In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., & Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 57–79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In Masters, J. C., & Smith, W. P. (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In Murnigham, K. (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161–183). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In Gilliland, S., Steiner, D., & Skarlicki, D. (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 3–33). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Folger, R. (2012). Deonance: Behavioral ethics and moral obligation. In de Cremer, D. & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (Eds.), Behavioral business ethics: Ideas on an emerging field. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In VandenBos, G. R. & Bulatao, E. Q. (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51–85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2253–2261.Google Scholar
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 79–87.Google Scholar
Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gambetta, D. (1987). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Cambridge, MA: Oxford.Google Scholar
Garrett, R. K. (2017). The “echo chamber” distraction: Disinformation campaigns are the problem, not audience fragmentation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 370–376.Google Scholar
Gino, F., Kouchaki, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The moral virtue of authenticity: How inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychological Science, 26, 983–996.Google Scholar
Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 15, 731–742.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.Google Scholar
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised group hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1176–1186.Google Scholar
Goold, S. D. (2002). Trust, distrust and trustworthiness: Lessons from the field. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17, 79–81.Google Scholar
Gray, K., DiMaggio, N., Schein, C., & Kachanoff, F. (in press). The problem of purity in moral psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1986a). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1986b). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., & Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 25–41). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1987a). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the ends justify the means? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1987b). Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals. Social Justice Research, 1, 219–234.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1987c). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1997). A social influence model of employee theft: Beyond the fraud triangle. In Lewicki, R. J., Bies, R. J., & Sheppard, B. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 29–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2000). Promote procedural justice to enhance acceptance of work outcomes. In Locke, E. A. (Ed.), A handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 181–195). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58–69.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In Paulus, P. B. (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235–256). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., & Lind, E. A. (2000). The pursuit of organizational justice: From conceptualization to implication to application. In Cooper, C. L. & Locke, E. A. (Eds.), I/O psychology: What we know about theory and practice (pp. 72–105). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2005). Emotion and cognition in moral judgment: Evidence from neuroimaging. In Changeux, J. P., Damasio, A. R., Singer, W., & Christen, Y. (Eds.), Neurobiology of human values (pp. 57–66). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.Google Scholar
Grillos, T., Zarychta, A., & Nuñez, J. N. (2021). Water scarcity and procedural justice in Honduras: Community-based management meets market-based policy. World Development, 142, 105451.Google Scholar
Grootelaar, H. A. M., & Van den Bos, K. (2018). How litigants in Dutch courtrooms come to trust judges: The role of perceived procedural justice, outcome favorability, and other socio-legal moderators. Law and Society Review, 52, 234–268.Google Scholar
Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2013). The effect of high-anxiety situations on conspiracy thinking. Current Psychology, 32, 100–118.Google Scholar
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means drive the need to believe in a just world. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1059–1073.Google Scholar
Hafer, C. L. (2002). Why we reject innocent victims. In Ross, M. & Miller, D. T. (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 109–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.Google Scholar
Hartman, R., Blakey, W., Womick, J., Bail, C., Finkel, E. J., Han, H., Sarrouf, J., Schroeder, J., Sheeran, P., Van Bavel, J. J., Willer, R., & Gray, K. (2022). Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nature Human Behavior, 6, 1194–1205.Google Scholar
Hartung, F. E. (1951). Science as an institution. Philosophy of Science, 18, 35–54.Google Scholar
Hebel-Sela, S., Hameiri, B., & Halperin, E. (in press). The vicious cycle of violent intergroup conflicts and conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, M., Meinlschmidt, G., Wippich, W., Ehlert, U., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2004). Selective amnesic effects of oxytocin on human memory. Physiology & Behavior, 83, 31–38.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92, 791–808.Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. (1999). The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96. American Political Science Review, 93 , 311–326.Google Scholar
Hirschberger, G. (in press). From individual insecurity to collective security: The group survival motivation. In Forgas, J., Crano, B., & Fiedler, K. (Eds.), The psychology of insecurity: Seeking certainty where none can be had. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to declines in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan. London: Penguin. (Original work published in 1651.)Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2015). On defining institutions: Rules versus equilibria. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11, 497–505.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, R. (1964). The paranoid style in American politics. Harper’s Magazine. Retrieved from https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2004). Uncertainty and extremism: Identification with high entitativity groups under conditions of uncertainty. In Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C. M., & Corneille, O. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 401–418). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2005). Uncertainty, social identity, and ideology. In Thye, S. R. & Lawler, E. J. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 22, pp. 203–230). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 70–126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2011). Self-uncertainty, social identity, and the solace of extremism. In Hogg, M. A. & Blaylock, D. L. (Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty (pp. 19–35). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., Adelman, J. R., & Blagg, R. D. (2010). Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 72–83.Google Scholar
Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 963–976.Google Scholar
Hulst, L. (2017). Experimental legal studies on perceived procedural justice and trust in law and society. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1951). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon. (Original work published in 1739.)Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1982). Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Oxford: Clarendon. (Original work published in 1777.)Google Scholar
Huntington, S. P. (1996). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Huo, Y. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 336–348.Google Scholar
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40–45.Google Scholar
Huo, Y. J., & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Ethnic diversity and the viability of organizations: The role of procedural justice in bridging differences. In Greenberg, J. & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 213–244). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Imhoff, R., Bertlich, T., & Frenken, M. (2022). Tearing apart the “evil” twins: A general conspiracy mentality is not the same as specific conspiracy beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101349.Google Scholar
Imhoff, R., Zimmer, F., Klein, O., António, J. H. C., Babinska, M., Bangerter, A., Bilewicz, M., Blanusa, N., Bovan, K., Buzarovska, R., Cichocka, A., Delouvée, S., Douglas, K. M., Dyrendal, A., Etienne, T., Gjoneska, B., Graf, S., Gualda, E., Hirschberger, G., Kende, A., Kutiyski, Y., Krekó, P., Krouwel, A., Mari, S., Milosevic Dordevic, J., Panasiti, M. S., Pantazi, M., Petkovski, L., Porciello, G., Rabelo, A., Radu, R. N., Sava, F. A., Schepisi, M., Sutton, R. M., Swami, V., Thórisdóttir, H., Turjacanin, V., Wagner-Egger, P., Zezelj, I., & Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2022). Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01258-7.Google Scholar
Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1998). Differential distrust of groups and of individuals. In Sedikides, C., Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 75–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jackson, P., & Delehanty, H. (2006). Sacred hoops: Spiritual lessons of a hardwood warrior. New York: Turq.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. B. (1996). Distrust of science. Nature, 380, 18.Google Scholar
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The effects of antivaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS ONE, 9, e89177.Google Scholar
Jolley, D., Marques, M. D., & Cookson, D. (2022). Shining a spotlight on the dangerous consequences of conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101363.Google Scholar
Jolley, D., Meleady, R., & Douglas, K. M. (2020). Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. British Journal of Psychology, 111, 17–35.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022). Cognitive-motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 560–576.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.Google Scholar
Kagan, J. (1984). The nature of the child. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kahn, D., Björklund, F., & Hirschberger, G. (2021). Why are our political rivals so blind to the problems facing society? Evidence that political leftists and rightists in Israel mentally construe collective threats differently. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 27, 426–435.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published in 1785.)Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 77–104.Google Scholar
Kirsch, P., Esslinger, C., Chen, Q., Mier, D., Lis, D., Siddhanti, S., Gruppe, H., Mattay, V. S., Gallhofer, B., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2005). Oxytocin modulates neural circuitry for social cognition and fear in humans. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 11489–11493.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Goslin, D. A. (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development. In Mischel, T. (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology (pp. 151–235). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koper, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Bouhuijs, F., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1993). Procedural fairness and self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 313–325.Google Scholar
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.Google Scholar
Kovera, M. B., & Borgida, E. (2010). Social psychology and law. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1343–1385). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1994). The sinister attribution error: Paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 199–230.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M., & Isen, A. M. (1994). Trust and distrust: Its psychological and social dimensions. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 105–107.Google Scholar
Kreko, P. (in press). Escape from insecurity: Conspiracy theories and pseudoscience as a response to the pandemic. In Forgas, J., Crano, B., & Fiedler, K. (Eds.), The psychology of insecurity: Seeking certainty where none can be had. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kret, M. E., Jaasma, L., Bionda, T., & Wijnen, J. G. (2016). Bonobos (Pan paniscus) show an attentional bias toward conspecifics’ emotions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 3761–3766.Google Scholar
Kteily, N. S., & Landry, A. P. (2022). Dehumanization: Trends, insights, and challenges. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26, 222–240.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landry, A. P., Schooler, J. W., Willer, R., & Selic, P. (in press). Reducing explicit blatant dehumanization by correcting exaggerated meta-perceptions. Social Psychological and Personality Science.Google Scholar
Leander, N. P., Agostini, M., Stroebe, W., Kreienkamp, J., Spears, R., Kuppens, T., … & Kruglanski, A. W. (2020). Frustration-affirmation? Thwarted goals motivate compliance with social norms for violence and nonviolence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 249–271.Google Scholar
Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal connection. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 864–897). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388–399.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (2012). Falende wetenschap: De frauduleuze onderzoekspraktijken van sociaal-psycholoog Diederik Stapel [Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel]. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Oberauer, K., Brophy, S., Lloyd, E. A., & Marriott, M. (2015). Recurrent fury: Conspiratorial discourse in the blogosphere triggered by research on the role of conspiracist ideation in climate denial. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 142–178.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353–369.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622–633.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 113–131.Google Scholar
Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intraunit justice climate. Journal of Management, 35, 564–599.Google Scholar
Liekefett, L., Christ, O., & Becker, J. C. (in press). Can conspiracy beliefs be beneficial? Longitudinal linkages between conspiracy beliefs, anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. (1992, March). The fairness heuristic: Rationality and “relationality” in procedural evaluations. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. (1994). Procedural justice and culture: Evidence for ubiquitous process concerns. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 15, 24–36.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. (1995). Social conflict and social justice: Lessons from the social psychology of justice judgments. Inaugural address, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In Greenberg, J. & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D. (2000). The winding road from employee to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful termination claims. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 557–590.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 1–22.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 189–210.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De Vera Park, M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224–251.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In Staw, B. M. & Kramer, R. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181–223). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Loseman, A., Miedema, J., Van den Bos, K., & Vermunt, R. (2009). Exploring how people respond to conflicts between self-interest and fairness: The influence of threats to the self on affective reactions to advantageous inequity. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 13–21.Google Scholar
Maddox, J. (1995). The prevalent distrust of science. Nature, 378, 435–437.Google Scholar
Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Martin, L. L. (1999). I-D compensation theory: Some implications of trying to satisfy immediate-return needs in a delayed-return culture. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 195–208.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins circumplex and the 5-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–595.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.Google Scholar
McGregor, I., Nash, K. A., & Prentice, M. (2011). Religious zeal after goal frustration. In Hogg, M. A. & Blaylock, D. L. (Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty (pp. 147–164). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
McLean, K. (2020). Revisiting the role of distributive justice in Tyler’s legitimacy theory. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16, 335–346.Google Scholar
McRaven, W. H. (2017). Make your bed. New York: Grand Central Publishing.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Messick, D. M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., Zemke, P., & Lui, L. (1983). Individual adaptations and structural changes as solutions to social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 , 294–309.Google Scholar
Mikolajczak, M., Gross, J. J., Lane, A., Corneille, O., De Timary, P., & Luminet, O. (2010). Oxytocin makes people trusting, not gullible. Psychological Science, 21, 1072–1074.Google Scholar
Mikula, G., & Wenzel, M. (2000). Justice and social conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 126–135.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060.Google Scholar
Minson, J. A., & Chen, F. S. (2022). Receptiveness to opposing views: Conceptualization and integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26, 93–111.Google Scholar
Minson, J. A., & Dorison, C. A. (in press). Why is exposure to opposing views aversive? Reconciling three theoretical perspectives. Current Opinion in Psychology.Google Scholar
Modde, J. M. (2001). Procedural fairness and noncompliance. Doctoral dissertation, Twente University.Google Scholar
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.Google Scholar
Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect organizational citizenship behavior? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace (pp. 355–380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newton, K. (2007). Social and political trust. In Dalton, R. J. & Klingemann, H. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behaviour (pp. 342–361). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolakis, W., & Grafton, R. Q. (2014). Fairness and justice in Indigenous water allocations: Insights from Northern Australia. Water Policy, 16, 19–35.Google Scholar
Nummela, O., Sulander, T., Rahkonen, O., & Uutela, A. (2009). The effect of trust and change in trust on self-rated health: A longitudinal study among aging people. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 49 , 339–342.Google Scholar
Opotow, S. (1990). Deterring moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 173–182.Google Scholar
Opotow, S. (1993). Animals and the scope of justice. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (1), 71–85.Google Scholar
Opotow, S. (1994). Predicting protection: Scope of justice and the natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 49–63.Google Scholar
Opotow, S. (1995). Drawing the line: Social categorization, moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In Bunker, B. B. & Rubin, J. Z. (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 347–369). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Opotow, S. (2008). “Not so much as a place to lay our head …”: Moral inclusion and exclusion in the American civil war reconstruction. Social Justice Research, 21, 26–49.Google Scholar
Opotow, S., Gerson, J., & Woodside, S. (2005). From moral exclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. Theory into Practice, 44, 303–318.Google Scholar
Overheul, M., Rijnhout, R., & Van den Bos, K. (2022). Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., Husnu, S., Joyce, N., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 548–562.Google Scholar
Parks, C. D., Joireman, J., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Cooperation, trust, and antagonism: How public goods are promoted. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 119–165.Google Scholar
Peeters, G. (1971). The positive-negative asymmetry: On cognitive consistency and positivity bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 455–474.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Bago, B., & McPhetres, J. (in press). Science beliefs, political ideology, and cognitive sophistication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.Google Scholar
Peperkoorn, L. S., Becker, D. V., Balliet, D., Columbus, S., Molho, C., & Van Lange, P. A. (2020). The prevalence of dyads in social life. PLoS ONE, 15, e0244188.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1975). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published in 1932.)Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Poon, K. T., Chen, Z., & Wong, W. Y. (2020). Beliefs in conspiracy theories following ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46 , 1234–1246.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1945). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1992). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1971.)Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2016). Fueling extremes. Scientific American Mind, 27 (3), 34–39.Google Scholar
Robertson, C. E., Pretus, C., Rathje, S., Harris, E., & Van Bavel, J. J. (in press). How social identity shapes conspiratorial belief. Current Opinion in Psychology.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. (2013). Crimes against humanity: The struggle for global justice (4th ed.). New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Roozenbeek, J., Van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8, eabo6254.Google Scholar
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35, 1–7.Google Scholar
Sargent, G. (2022, July 11). An expert in political violence urgently warns: The worst is coming. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/11/gop-political-violence-militias-jan-6-democratic-breakdown/Google Scholar
Sassenberg, K., Winter, K., Becker, D., Ditrich, L., Scholl, A., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2022). Flexibility mindsets: Reducing biases that result from spontaneous processing. European Review of Social Psychology, 33, 171–213.Google Scholar
Schermer, M. (2004). The science of good and evil: Why people cheat, gossip, share, and follow the golden rule. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Schimmelpfennig, R., & Muthukrishna, M. (2022, March 14). Cultural evolutionary behavioural science in public policy. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4057679.Google Scholar
Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121–151). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1999). The reduction of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect: The role of future consequences. In Foddy, M., Smithson, M., Schneider, S., & Hogg, M. (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 281–293). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Wieselquist, J., Pemberton, M., Witcher, B., Kozar, R., Roddenberry, C., & Wildschut, T. (2001). When groups are more competitive than individuals: The domain of the discontinuity effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 632–644.Google Scholar
Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2004). Encoding under trust and distrust: The spontaneous activation of incongruent cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 668–679.Google Scholar
Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2008). The value of distrust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1293–1302.Google Scholar
Schyns, P., & Koop, C. (2010). Political distrust and social capital in Europe and the USA. Social Indicators Research, 96, 145–167.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349–356.Google Scholar
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.Google Scholar
Sherman, G. D., & Clore, G. L. (2009). The color of sin: White and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and pollution. Psychological Science, 20, 1019–1025.Google Scholar
Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Clore, G. L. (2012). The faintest speck of dirt: Disgust enhances the detection of impurity. Psychological Science, 23, 1506–1514.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C. M., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In Jost, J. T. & Major, B. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–331). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146–170.Google Scholar
Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group-membership, self-worth and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470–493.Google Scholar
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.Google Scholar
Sprinzak, E. (1991). The process of delegitimation: Towards a linkage theory of political terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 3, 50–68.Google Scholar
Sprinzak, E. (1995). Right-wing terrorism in a comparative perspective: The case of split delegitimization. Terrorism and Political Violence, 7, 17–43.Google Scholar
Stanghellini, G. (2000). Vulnerability to schizophrenia and lack of common sense. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26, 775–787.Google Scholar
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Staub, E. (2018). Preventing violence and promoting active bystandership and peace: My life in research and applications. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24, 95–111.Google Scholar
Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 297–334.Google Scholar
Sternisko, A., Cichocka, A., Cislak, A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (in press). National narcissism predicts the belief in and the dissemination of conspiracy theories during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from 56 countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.Google Scholar
Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 321–326.Google Scholar
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). Moral solidarity, identification with the community, and the importance of procedural justice: The police as prototypical representatives of a group’s moral values. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 153–165.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. M., & Douglas, K. M. (in press). Rabbit Hole Syndrome: Inadvertent, accelerating, and entrenched commitment to conspiracy beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology.Google Scholar
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 23–40.Google Scholar
Syme, G. J. (2014). Acceptable risk and social values: Struggling with uncertainty in Australian water allocation. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 28, 113–121.Google Scholar
Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27–60). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 1–39.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Tausch, N., Becker, J., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Sing, P., & Siddiqui, P. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and non-normative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 , 129–148.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social-functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: The intuitive politician, theologian, and prosecutor. Psychological Review, 109, 451–472.Google Scholar
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Wittek, R. (2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286–295.Google Scholar
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79–92.Google Scholar
Thayer, L. (2021). The grand challenges of psychological science. Observer of the Association for Psychological Science, December 29, 2021, www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/grand-challenges.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2009). On the social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. In Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C., & Thorisdottir, H. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 3–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronto, M. E. (2006). A field study of the role of the Big Five personality in applicant perceptions of selection fairness, self, and the hiring organization. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 269–277.Google Scholar
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18, 51–74.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1986). Justice and leadership endorsement. In Lau, R. R. & Sears, D. O. (Eds.), Political cognitions (pp. 257–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22, 103–135.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Justice, self-interest, and the legitimacy of legal and political authority. In Mannsbridge, J. J. (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 171–179). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323–345.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In Staw, B. M. & Sutton, R. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 201–246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2009). Procedural justice, identity and deference to the law: What shapes rule-following in a period of transition? Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 32–39.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2010). Legitimacy and rule adherence: A psychological perspective on the antecedents and consequences of legitimacy. In Bobocel, D. R., Kay, A. C., Zanna, M. P., & Olson, J. M. (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 251–272). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2012). Justice and effective cooperation. Social Justice Research, 25, 355–375.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2013). The psychology of cooperation: Implications for public policy. In Shafir, E. (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 77–90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In Caroll, J. S. (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1143–1158.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Casper, J. D., & Fisher, B. (1989). Maintaining allegiance toward political authorities: The role of prior attitudes and the use of fair procedures. American Journal of Political Science, 33 , 629–652.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2006). How do we promote cooperation in groups, organizations, and societies? In van Lange, P. A. M. (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary approaches (pp. 427–433). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & DeGoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482–497.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & DeGoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In Kramer, R. & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331–356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16, 75–109.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 78–95.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Psychology and the law: Reconciling normative and descriptive accounts of social justice and system legitimacy. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 807–825). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 1138–1163.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., Ohbuchi, K.-I., Sugawara, I., & Huo, Y. J. (1998). Conflict with outsiders: Disputing within and across cultural boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 137–146.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & McGraw, K. M. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on the endorsement of political leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 700–725.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. F. (1996). Member diversity and leadership effectiveness: Procedural justice, social identity, and group dynamics. In Markovsky, B., Lovaglia, M. J., & Simon, R. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 13, pp. 33–66). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. (2004). Profiling and the legitimacy of the police: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and the acceptance of social authority. Criminology, 42, 13–42.Google Scholar
Uh, S. (2016). The relationship between sociomoral disgust and physical disgust: Investigation of facial affect in response to purity and fairness violations. Neuroethics, 9, 139.Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C., Guastella, A. J., & Forgas, J. P. (2008). Oxytocin selectively facilitates recognition of positive sex and relationship words. Psychological Science, 19, 1092–1094.Google Scholar
Uscinski, J., Enders, A. M., Klofstad, C., & Stoler, J. (2022). Cause and effect: On the antecedents and consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101364.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (1996). Procedural justice and conflict. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560–577.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2001a). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. In Gilliland, S. W., Steiner, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 63–84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2001b). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 482–498.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace (pp. 273–300). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2007). Hot cognition and social justice judgments: The combined influence of cognitive and affective factors on the justice judgment process. In de Cremer, D. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. 59–82). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2009). Making sense of life: The existential self trying to deal with personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 197–217.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2011). Vertrouwen in de overheid: Wanneer hebben burgers het, wanneer hebben ze het niet, en wanneer weten ze niet of de overheid te vertrouwen is? The Hague: Netherlands Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2015). Humans making sense of alarming conditions: Psychological insight into the fair process effect. In Cropanzano, R. S. & Ambrose, M. L. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of justice in work organizations (pp. 403–417). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2018). Why people radicalize: How unfairness judgments are used to fuel radical beliefs, extremist behaviors, and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2020a). Empirical legal research: A primer. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2020b). Unfairness and radicalization. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 563–588.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (2021). Social psychology and law: Basic social psychological principles in legal contexts. In van Lange, P. A. M., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (3rd ed., pp. 513–531). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K. (in press). Trust in social institutions: The role of informational and personal uncertainty. In Forgas, J., Fiedler, K., & Crano, B. (Eds.), The psychology of insecurity: Seeking certainty where none can be had. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., & Bal, M. (2016). Social-cognitive and motivational processes underlying the justice motive. In Sabbagh, C. & Schmitt, M. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 181–198). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 324–336.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Euwema, M. C., Poortvliet, P. M., & Maas, M. (2007). Uncertainty management and social issues: Uncertainty as important determinant of reactions to socially deviating people. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1726–1756.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Ham, J., Lind, E. A., Simonis, M., Van Essen, W. J., & Rijpkema, M. (2008). Justice and the human alarm system: The impact of exclamation points and flashing lights on the justice judgment process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 201–219.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Heuven, E., Burger, E., & Fernández Van Veldhuizen, M. (2006). Uncertainty management after reorganizations: The ameliorative effect of outcome fairness on job uncertainty. International Review of Social Psychology, 19, 75–86.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Hulst, L., Robijn, M., Romijn, S., & Wever, T. (in press). Field experiments examining trust in law: Interviewer effects on participants with lower education. Utrecht Law Review.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Hulst, L., Van Sintemaartensdijk, I., Schuurman, B., Stel, M., & Noppers, M. (2021). Copycatgedrag bij terroristische aanslagen: Een verkenning. The Hague: Research and Documentation Centre of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice and Security.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2001). The psychology of own versus others’ treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1324–1333.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2009). The social psychology of fairness and the regulation of personal uncertainty. In Arkin, R. M., Oleson, K. C., & Carroll, P. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the uncertain self (pp. 122–141). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2013). On sense-making reactions and public inhibition of benign social motives: An appraisal model of prosocial behavior. In Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 48, pp. 1–58). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Maas, M., Waldring, I. E., & Semin, G. R. (2003). Toward understanding the psychology of reactions to perceived fairness: The role of affect intensity. Social Justice Research, 16, 151–168.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., McGregor, I., & Martin, L. L. (2015). Security and uncertainty in contemporary delayed-return cultures: Coping with the blockage of personal goals. In Carroll, P. J., Arkin, R. M., & Wichman, A. L. (Eds.), Handbook of personal security (pp. 21–35). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 355–366.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Peters, S. L., Bobocel, D. R., & Ybema, J. F. (2006). On preferences and doing the right thing: Satisfaction with advantageous inequity when cognitive processing is limited. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 273–289.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Poortvliet, P. M., Maas, M., Miedema, J., & Van den Ham, E.-J. (2005). An enquiry concerning the principles of cultural norms and values: The impact of uncertainty and mortality salience on reactions to violations and bolstering of cultural worldviews. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 91–113.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., & Spruijt, N. (2002). Appropriateness of decisions as a moderator of the psychology of voice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 57–72.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Van der Velden, L., & Lind, E. A. (2014). On the role of perceived procedural justice in citizens’ reactions to government decisions and the handling of conflicts. Utrecht Law Review, 10 (4), 1–26.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Van Lange, P. A. M., Lind, E. A., Venhoeven, L. A., Beudeker, D. A., Cramwinckel, F. M., Smulders, L., & Van der Laan, J. (2011). On the benign qualities of behavioral disinhibition: Because of the prosocial nature of people, behavioral disinhibition can weaken pleasure with getting more than you deserve. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 791–811.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Van Schie, E. C. M., & Colenberg, S. E. (2002). Parents’ reactions to child day care organizations: The influence of perceptions of procedures and the role of organizations’ trustworthiness. Social Justice Research, 15, 53–62.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411–428.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95–104.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449–1458.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1493–1503.Google Scholar
Van der Linden, S. (2015). The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 171–173.Google Scholar
Van der Linden, S. (2019). Countering science denial. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 889–890.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.Google Scholar
Van Koppen, P. J. (2002). Rechterlijke dwalingen. In van Koppen, P. J., Hessing, D. J., Merckelbach, H. L. G. J., & Crombag, H. F. M. (Eds.), Het recht van binnen: Psychologie van het recht (pp. 871–885). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Van Koppen, P. J. (2017). Rechterlijke dwalingen. In van Koppen, P. J., de Keijser, J. W., Horselenberg, R., & Jelicic, M. (Eds.), Routes van het recht: Over de rechtspsychologie (pp. 883–918). Den Haag: Boom Juridisch.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2018). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2022). Psychological benefits of believing conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101352.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W. (in press). Feelings of insecurity as driver of anti-establishment sentiments. In Forgas, J., Crano, B., & Fiedler, K. (Eds.), The psychology of insecurity: Seeking certainty where none can be had. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Acker, M. (2015). The influence of control on belief in conspiracy theories: Conceptual and applied extensions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 753–761.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., Karremans, J. C., & Van Beest, I. (2006). Procedural justice and the hedonic principle: How approach versus avoidance motivation influences the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 686–697.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2019). Psychological features of extreme political ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 1–5.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J. W., Ligthart, J., Rosema, S., & Xu, Y. (in press). The entertainment value of conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353–1361.Google Scholar
Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Davis, J. L., & Ramos, M. (2015). Forgiveness increases meaning in life. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 47–55.Google Scholar
Vermunt, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., & Blaauw, E (2001). Self-esteem and outcome fairness: Differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 621–628.Google Scholar
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J., Pink, S., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Cashman, M., Druckman, J. N., Rand, D. G., & Willer, R. (2022). Megastudy identifying successful interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from www.strengtheningdemocracychallenge.org/paper.Google Scholar
Wagner-Egger, P., Bangerter, A., Delouvée, S., & Dieguez, S. (2022). Awake together: Sociopsychological processes of engagement in conspiracist communities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101417.Google Scholar
Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.Google Scholar
Warren, M. E. (1999). Democratic theory and trust. In Warren, M. E. (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 310–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner’s Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vovak, H., Zastrow, T., Braga, A. A., & Turchan, B. (2022). Reforming the police through procedural justice training: A multicity randomized trial at crime hot spots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119, e2118780119.Google Scholar
West, T. (2022). Jerks at work: Toxic coworkers and what to do about them. London: Ebury.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D., Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, K. (2010). The art of laboratory experimentation. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 51–81). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Winston, J. S., Strange, B. A., O’Doherty, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 5 , 277–283.Google Scholar
Winter, K., Scholl, A., & Sassenberg, K. (in press). Flexible minds make more moderate views: Subtractive counterfactuals mitigate strong views about immigrants’ trustworthiness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.Google Scholar
Wolfe, S. E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R., & Rojek, J. (2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 253–282.Google Scholar
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141–159.Google Scholar
Zezelj, I., & Petrović, M. (2022). Both a bioweapon and a hoax: The curious case of contradictory conspiracy theories about COVID-19. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved at https://psyarxiv.com/2m4aw/.Google Scholar
Zhou, S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., Moyer, A., & Hewstone, M. (2019). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23 , 132–160.Google Scholar
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., & Verano-Tacoronte, D. (2007). Investigating the effects of procedural justice on workplace deviance: Do employees’ perceptions of conflicting guidance call the tune? International Journal of Manpower, 28, 715–729.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Kees van den Bos, Utrecht University
  • Book: The Fair Process Effect
  • Online publication: 26 October 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009218979.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Kees van den Bos, Utrecht University
  • Book: The Fair Process Effect
  • Online publication: 26 October 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009218979.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Kees van den Bos, Utrecht University
  • Book: The Fair Process Effect
  • Online publication: 26 October 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009218979.017
Available formats
×