{"title":"Beyond procedural justice: Power, identity and the asymmetric architecture of public trust in security services","authors":"Paul Wood","doi":"10.1111/bjso.70114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Public trust in security services is a critical social-psychological phenomenon, yet existing theoretical accounts remain fragmented and insufficiently attentive to the structural power asymmetries characterising security–public relations. This article argues that the dominant paradigm, procedural justice theory, requires fundamental revision within intergroup and institutional power dynamics. Drawing upon procedural justice theory (<i>Why people obey the law</i>, 1990, Yale University Press; <i>Why people obey the law</i>, 2nd ed., 2006, Princeton University Press), social identity and self-categorisation theory (<i>The social psychology of intergroup relations</i>, 1979, 33, Brooks/Cole; <i>Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory</i>, 1987, Blackwell), the integrative model of organisational trust (<i>Academy of Management Review</i>, 1995, 20, 709), intergroup contact theory (<i>The nature of prejudice</i>, 1954, Addison-Wesley), system justification theory (<i>British Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 1994, 33, 1), institutional betrayal theory (<i>American Psychologist</i>, 2014, 69, 575) and the political trust tradition (<i>A systems analysis of political life</i>, 1965, Wiley; <i>Trust and trustworthiness</i>, 2002, Russell Sage Foundation; <i>Annual Review of Political Science</i>, 2000, 3, 475), the article advances three propositions. First, trust formation is asymmetric: trust erodes faster than it accrues, with the asymmetry amplified for subordinate-status groups. Second, procedural justice effects are identity-contingent: perceived fairness operates differently depending on whether the authority is categorised as in-group protector or out-group enforcer. Third, trustworthiness appraisal under institutional betrayal requires reconceptualising Mayer et al.'s integrity dimension as epistemic credibility. A four-pathway model is proposed, with power asymmetry as a structural moderator and recursive feedback producing virtuous or vicious trust spirals.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"65 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.70114","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Public trust in security services is a critical social-psychological phenomenon, yet existing theoretical accounts remain fragmented and insufficiently attentive to the structural power asymmetries characterising security–public relations. This article argues that the dominant paradigm, procedural justice theory, requires fundamental revision within intergroup and institutional power dynamics. Drawing upon procedural justice theory (Why people obey the law, 1990, Yale University Press; Why people obey the law, 2nd ed., 2006, Princeton University Press), social identity and self-categorisation theory (The social psychology of intergroup relations, 1979, 33, Brooks/Cole; Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory, 1987, Blackwell), the integrative model of organisational trust (Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20, 709), intergroup contact theory (The nature of prejudice, 1954, Addison-Wesley), system justification theory (British Journal of Social Psychology, 1994, 33, 1), institutional betrayal theory (American Psychologist, 2014, 69, 575) and the political trust tradition (A systems analysis of political life, 1965, Wiley; Trust and trustworthiness, 2002, Russell Sage Foundation; Annual Review of Political Science, 2000, 3, 475), the article advances three propositions. First, trust formation is asymmetric: trust erodes faster than it accrues, with the asymmetry amplified for subordinate-status groups. Second, procedural justice effects are identity-contingent: perceived fairness operates differently depending on whether the authority is categorised as in-group protector or out-group enforcer. Third, trustworthiness appraisal under institutional betrayal requires reconceptualising Mayer et al.'s integrity dimension as epistemic credibility. A four-pathway model is proposed, with power asymmetry as a structural moderator and recursive feedback producing virtuous or vicious trust spirals.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.