Beyond procedural justice: Power, identity and the asymmetric architecture of public trust in security services

IF 3.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Paul Wood
{"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.

超越程序正义:权力、身份和公众对安全服务信任的不对称架构
公众对安全服务的信任是一种重要的社会心理现象,然而现有的理论解释仍然是支离破碎的,并且对安全-公共关系特征的结构性权力不对称缺乏足够的关注。本文认为,占主导地位的程序正义理论需要从群体间和制度权力动力学的角度进行根本性的修正。借鉴程序正义理论(为什么人们遵守法律,1990年,耶鲁大学出版社;为什么人们遵守法律,第二版,2006年,普林斯顿大学出版社),社会认同和自我分类理论(群体间关系的社会心理学,1979年,33年,布鲁克斯/科尔;重新发现社会群体:自我分类理论,1987,Blackwell)、组织信任的整合模型(管理评论,1995,20,709)、群体间接触理论(偏见的本质,1954,Addison‐Wesley)、制度辩护理论(英国社会心理学杂志,1994,33,1)、制度背叛理论(美国心理学家,2014,69,575)和政治信任传统(政治生活的系统分析,1965,Wiley;信任与诚信,2002年,罗素·塞奇基金会;《政治学年鉴》,2000年第3期,第475页),文章提出了三个命题。首先,信任的形成是不对称的:信任的侵蚀速度比积累速度要快,在从属地位群体中,这种不对称被放大了。其次,程序正义的影响是身份偶然性的:感知到的公平运作方式不同,取决于权力机构是被归类为群体内保护者还是群体外执行者。第三,制度背叛下的可信度评估需要将Mayer等人的诚信维度重新定义为认知可信度。提出了一个四路径模型,其中权力不对称作为结构性调节因子,递归反馈产生良性或恶性信任螺旋。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书