The Effects of Social Exclusion Threat and Justifications on Perceived Fairness of an Ethnic Validation Procedure: Implications for Lumbee Federal Recognition.

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to explore the effects of social exclusion threat negative affect on the evaluated fairness of a procedure that's function is to validate ethnic membership using the Dimensional Voice Model (Bane, 1994). Participants consisted of 120 (60 = female, 60 = male) college students. The study design was a 2 (Gender) X 2 (Justification) X 3 (Procedure) factorial between-groups experimental design. Based on social exclusion theory, individuals may experience high levels of negative affect when they perceive a threat of exclusion from a group (Baumeister & Tice, 1990). It was hypothesized that a procedure designed to validate ethnic membership will result in social exclusion threat negative affect. A procedure designed to validate ethnic membership was hypothesized as being evaluated as unfair (Thibaut, Walker, LaTour, & Houlden, 1974; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1990, 1994; Tyler & Lind, 1994; Walker, LaTour, Lind, & Thibaut, 1974). Justifications (Bies, 1987a, 1987b, 1989; Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987, 1988; Brotheridge, 2003; Skarlicki, Folger & Gee, 2004) before the procedure was tested as the rationale for the procedure introduced as procedural justification. Of two procedural justifications, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Science Foundation (NSF) justification was hypothesized as being perceived fairer. The results suggest that procedures designed to validate ethnic membership were evaluated as unfair. Additionally, the results indicated that procedural justifications might affect perceptions of fairness of the procedure. The data strongly supports the notion that these procedures may create an environment of negative affect with respondents evaluating the procedures as unfair. Implications for Lumbee Federal Recognition are discussed.