On not airing our dirty laundry: Intergroup contexts suppress ingroup criticism among strongly identified group members

Come and say what you think: reducing employees' self-censorship through procedural and interpersonal justice

BACKGROUND

Self-censorship in an organization may be defined as a conscious decision by employees to refrain from expressing opinions, criticism or suggestions in situations of perceived irregularities. There are at least two reasons for this decision: firstly, the fear that speaking up would prompt negative consequences, and secondly, the belief that it would not bring about a change in the situation. Procedural justice in an organization may encourage employees to limit that silence, thereby diminishing fear and undermining the belief that change is impossible.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

A set of three studies (total number of participants N = 710) was conducted in order to determine whether procedural justice predicts self-censorship and also to define the role of interpersonal justice in this relationship. It was assumed that procedural justice, while useful in the formation of an impartial and rigid legal system within an organization, is constrained by its disregard for personal relations.

RESULTS

It was found that when employees perceive a work environment as providing influence over procedures, they declare less self-censorship motivated by fear and resignation. In high interpersonal justice conditions the role of procedural justice in predicting employee self-censorship as well as employee silence beliefs increases.

CONCLUSIONS

Both fair treatment of all employees and the contextual and need-centered nature of such treatment should be integrated if self-censorship is to be reduced. The results confirm this conclusion for self-censorship (decision) and employee silence beliefs (belief that relations within the organization do not encourage people to speak up).

Social Influence and Group Identity

This chapter reviews research on the group identity explanation of social influence, grounded in self-categorization theory, and contrasts it with other group-based explanations, including normative influence, interdependence, and social network approaches, as well as approaches to persuasion and influence that background group (identity) processes. Although the review primarily discusses recent research, its focus also invites reappraisal of some classic research in order to address basic questions about the scope and power of the group identity explanation. The self-categorization explanation of influence grounded in group norms, moderated by group identification, is compared and contrasted to other normative explanations of influence, notably the concept of injunctive norms and the relation to moral conviction. A range of moderating factors relating to individual variation, features of the intragroup and intergroup context, and important contextual variables (i.e., anonymity versus visibility, isolation versus copresence) that are particularly relevant to online influence in the new media are also reviewed.

The social psychology of whistleblowing: An integrated model

Whistleblowing is the disclosure of ingroup wrongdoing to an external agency and can have important functions for the regulation of moral and legal conduct. Organizational research has focused largely on the impact of individual and organizational factors, while overlooking the role of group memberships and associated social identities. Further, social psychologists have so far paid little attention to this phenomenon, or else have tended to subsume it within analysis of dissent. To address these lacunae, we present a psychological model of whistleblowing that draws on social identity theorizing (after Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This model describes when and how social identities and different forms of power motivate group members to respond to ingroup wrongdoing by engaging in whistleblowing. Our review of the literature points to the model’s ability to integrate existing evidence while providing direction for future research. We also discuss the model’s capacity to inform whistleblowing policy and procedures.

Coping With Group Members Who Insult the In-Group

How do people cope with group members who insult the in-group? The 2016 U.S. Presidential election provided an opportunity to examine this question among group members experiencing unprecedented within-group strife. Participants read an essay written by an in-group or out-group member (Study 1, university affiliation; Study 2, U.S. political party affiliation, conducted at the height of the 2016 Presidential campaign), in which the author insulted his or her in-group. Participants reported the extent to which and reasons why they wanted to confront and avoid the target. Desire to rebuke the target, but not desire to protect oneself and the in-group, mediated the relationship between exposure to in-group (vs. out-group) deviance and confrontation. Desires to rebuke and protect jointly mediated the relationship with avoidance. Whereas people may differ on how they react to in-group deviance, they are primarily motivated by wanting to reprimand deviants, with implications for coping with intragroup conflict.

Adaptation and Validation of a German Multidimensional and Multicomponent Measure of Social Identification

Abstract. The present article describes a reliable and valid German multidimensional multicomponent measure of social identification. A translation of the original Dutch measure of social identification ( Leach et al., 2008 ) was adapted to the German context and validated in three different samples across three distinct identities using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results of Study 1 (organizational identity, N = 419), Study 2 (national identity, N = 274), and Study 3 (gender identity, N = 833) confirm the psychometric qualities of the German measure and replicate the theoretical multidimensional multicomponent model of social identification including the self-definition (individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity) and self-investment (solidarity, satisfaction, and centrality) dimensions. In addition, Studies 2 and 3 provide evidence for the construct validity of the German subscales of the social identification components.