in search of the active ingredient of respect: a closer look at the role of acceptance

European Journal of Social Psychology

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 809–818 (2005)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.272

In search of the active ingredient of respect:A closer look at the role of acceptance

BERND SIMON* AND STEFAN STURMERUniversity of Kiel, Germany

Abstract

The experiment (N¼ 67) tested whether the effectiveness of intragroup respect can be traced back to

the symbolic value of intragroup respect as a sign or message of acceptance. In addition to intragroup

respect, intragroup acceptance was manipulated as a second independent variable so that the

hypothesized acceptance message of intragroup respect was either confirmed or undermined.

Collective identification and willingness to engage in group-serving behaviour were the main

dependent variables. Mediation tests—based on the experimental manipulations as well as additional

measurement of the critical variables—provided no evidence that intragroup acceptance is the active

ingredient of intragroup respect. Instead, we replicated the respect effects known from the literature

and secured further evidence of their internal validity. We also found an effect of intragroup

acceptance similar to that of intragroup respect, but the former was mediated by feelings of being

liked which played no role in intragroup respect. Theoretical and methodological implications of the

results are discussed. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Respectful (i.e. unbiased, trustworthy, and dignified) treatment by authorities increases commitment to

the organizations these authorities represent as well as compliance with the rules of these organiza-

tions (Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997). Moreover, researchers have

shown that respect can fruitfully be integrated as an explanatory variable into the analysis of various

other aspects of group life, including group members’ self-esteem (Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind,

1998), collective identification (Simon & Sturmer, 2003), and group-serving behaviour (Branscombe,

Spears, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2002; De Cremer, 2002; Simon & Sturmer, 2003). The typical finding is

that experiences of intragroup respect (i.e. being respected by group authorities or fellow group

members) have a facilitative effect on these aspects of group life.

The effectiveness of intragroup respect in group life is generally ascribed to the symbolic or

information value that experiences of intragroup respect may have with regard to the quality of the

self-(in)group relationship. Respectful treatment by group authorities or fellow group members may

Received 27 September 2004

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 28 February 2005

*Correspondence to: Dr B. Simon, Institut fur Psychologie, Universitat Kiel Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany.E-mail: [email protected]

Contract/grant sponsor: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; contract/grant number: Si 428/4-4.

communicate to the recipient of such treatment that the relationship with his or her group is intact—a

relationship that gives the person access to other desirable experiences, such as (self-)esteem and

identity, but also entails obligations to the group and its goals. A hypothesis representative, though not

exhaustive, of this general explanatory theme is that intragroup respect is taken by the recipient as a

sign or message of acceptance (i.e. that he or she is included in, or admitted into, the group). To this

reassuring message, the recipient should then respond with increased identification with the group as

well as increased willingness to participate in group activities.

The present experiment builds on and extends an earlier experiment in which we established the

facilitative effect of intragroup respect on collective identification and group-serving behaviour, but

did not examine whether the effectiveness of intragroup respect can be traced back to its (implicit)

acceptance message (Simon & Sturmer, 2003). The aim of the experiment reported in this article is to

test such an acceptance account. To pursue this aim, we employ two complementary strategies.

First, we follow Sigall and Mills (1998) who recommend that ‘the best way to show that the

proposed mediator is responsible for the influence of the conceptual independent variable on the

conceptual dependent variable is to conduct another experiment that manipulates the proposed

mediator’ (p. 225). We therefore manipulate both intragroup respect and acceptance as two independent

variables in the same experimental design. If the acceptance message underlies the effectiveness of

intragroup respect, the explicit manipulation of intragroup acceptance should wipe out the effect of

intragroup respect and replace it with a (main) effect of intragroup acceptance. To illustrate this

reasoning with a juicier, though admittedly idealized, example, if vitamin C is the active ingredient in

oranges (with respect to health), orthogonal variation of orange consumption and vitamin C intake

(with the following four cells: oranges with vitamin C, oranges without vitamin C, vitamin C intake

without oranges, no vitamin C intake and no oranges) should result only in a main effect of vitamin C

intake (on health). Put in more common mediation terminology (Baron & Kenny, 1986), if intragroup

acceptance mediates the relationship between intragroup respect and the dependent variables,

simultaneous inclusion of both intragroup respect and acceptance as independent variables in the

same explanatory model should yield a main effect of the proposed mediator (intragroup acceptance)

replacing the original effect of intragroup respect (for the same logic, see Wigboldus, Semin, & Spears,

2000, pp. 14–15). As a second strategy, we also measure perceived intragroup acceptance and use this

measurement as a covariate in our analyses. If the acceptance message is the active ingredient of

intragroup respect, perceived intragroup acceptance should co-vary with manipulated intragroup

respect and actually mediate any (remaining) effect of intragroup respect (i.e. indirect effect of

manipulated intragroup respect via perceived intragroup acceptance). Note that the success of the

experimental strategy hinges on the orthogonal manipulation of intragroup respect and acceptance (or,

with regard to our juicier example, on whether we can have oranges without vitamin C and vice versa).

Accordingly, the measurement strategy is an important complement to the experimental strategy,

especially in case of an imperfect orthogonal manipulation of the critical variables.

As in our previous work, intragroup respect is manipulated by confronting research participants

with respectful or disrespectful remarks allegedly made by their fellow group members. Intragroup

acceptance is then manipulated by way of contrived feedback as to whether fellow group members

wish the participant to stay in the group or would rather see him or her leave. At first glance, it may

seem that the independent manipulations of intragroup respect and acceptance put (some of) the

participants in a rather peculiar situation, such as when they are first respected, but then learn that they

are not really accepted. Note however that, despite its mixed composition, such a situation is not that

unusual after all as any applicant for graduate school can confirm who, despite respectful treatment by

the selection committee, was eventually not accepted into his or her preferred school.

Our main dependent variables are collective identification and willingness to engage in group-

serving behaviour. Main effects of intragroup acceptance would suggest that intragroup acceptance is

810 Bernd Simon and Stefan Sturmer

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 809–818 (2005)

indeed the active ingredient of intragroup respect, especially when any effect of the latter variable is

wiped out. However, enduring main effects of intragroup respect that are not mediated by perceived

intragroup acceptance would cast serious doubt on the role of intragroup acceptance as the active

ingredient of intragroup respect.

METHOD

Participants and Design

Forty-five high-school students and 22 students from various faculties of the university of Kiel (36

men and 31 women, M age¼ 19.73 years, SD¼ 3.15 years) participated in the experiment.1 The

design consisted of two between-subjects variables: respect (disrespect vs. respect) and acceptance

(rejection vs. acceptance). Participants were randomly assigned to the four cells of the design, with n

ranging from 16 to 18. Each participant received the equivalent of approximately US$ 7 for his or her

participation.

Procedure

The experiment was allegedly concerned with political participation of young people. Between five

and eight persons were invited for each experimental session. They were greeted as a group and told

that their collective task would be first to develop suggestions about how to increase the influence and

participation of young people in politics and then to design a poster presenting their suggestions. An

independent jury would later compare the poster of their group, which was referred to as the blue

group throughout the experiment, with the posters of two other groups (the red group and the green

group).

Participants were seated at individual computer terminals separated by screens. They were told that,

in the first phase of their cooperation, all interaction among group members would take place via

electronic mail and, to ensure anonymity, each member would be identified only by a code number.

This procedure had allegedly proven very effective in the past. It was further stated that, for technical

reasons, each participant could receive messages from no more than four other group members at a

time. Although participants were carefully instructed how to send and receive messages by computer,

they were actually never able to send messages to other group members or to receive messages from

them because all messages had been pre-programmed by the experimenters.

Next, participants were asked to individually develop four suggestions how to increase the

influence and participation of young people in politics. Each participant’s suggestions would later

be distributed among all group members for further discussion. More specifically, the computer

program (‘the Master-PC’) would randomly select one group member after the other and forward his

or her suggestions to the other members in the group. The latter could then briefly comment on the

suggestions before the suggestions of the next participant would be distributed and so on. It was

claimed that previous research had shown that such a consecutive exchange provides a good starting-

point for the subsequent group discussion and cooperation.

1In light of the sample’s heterogeneity with respect to participants’ age (M(high-school students)¼ 18.04 years,M(universitystudents)¼ 23.18 years, t(65)¼�9.78, p< 0.001), we also performed 2� 2 Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs) on themain dependent variables with age as an additional covariate. These analyses yielded the same results as the main analysesreported below. Age was not even a significant covariate.

Respect and acceptance 811


In reality, each participant was notified that it happened to be his or her suggestions that would be

forwarded to the other group members in the first round. While participants were then waiting for their

fellow group members’ comments, they worked on a filler task (inputting ideas as to what other means,

in addition to the poster, could be employed to approach young people). This task also ensured that

everyone was actually working on the computer during this phase of the experiment so that each

participant believed that the other group members were inputting their comments concerning his or her

suggestions.

Subsequently, participants received the comments that had allegedly been made by their fellow

group members, but had actually been pre-programmed by the experimenters to manipulate (dis)-

respect. In addition, each participant was informed about his or her fellow group members’ alleged

responses to a question as to how much they wanted him or her in the group (see Independent Variables

section). Finally, to keep perceived performance evaluation constant across all conditions, each

participant learned that his or her fellow group members had rated the quality of his or her suggestions

as quite acceptable on a scale ranging from very bad to very good with acceptable as the midpoint.

Participants then completed the dependent measures, were fully debriefed, and thanked.

Independent Variables

Respect Manipulation

Each participant received a set of four comments, with each comment allegedly made by a different

fellow group member. The set consisted of one neutral comment (‘Your suggestions have arrived’)

and, depending on the condition, either three disrespectful or three respectful comments. The

disrespectful and respectful comments had already successfully been used—after careful pretest-

ing—in our earlier research (Simon & Sturmer, 2003). The three disrespectful comments read as

follows:

1. I find it difficult to judge your suggestions without comparing them with my own. It doesn’t matter,

does it?

2. Your suggestions have just arrived. I eye-balled them. That’s what I had to do, but actually, I am not

very interested in them.

3. I have read your suggestions, because I had to. But actually I’d rather have done something else. I

am pretty opinionated about this topic.

The three respectful comments read as follows:

1. Thank you for your suggestions. You can be sure that I will take the time to think about them

thoroughly.

2. You really put a lot of thought into this. These are very concrete suggestions. I first have to think

about them in order to be able to give you my opinion on your suggestions.

3. I received your suggestions. I find them very interesting and will check them carefully before I form

a final opinion. Therefore, it will take some time. I hope you understand. I will try my best.

Acceptance Manipulation

After the respect manipulation, each participant was informed that the experimenters had also

requested their fellow group members to indicate the extent to which they wished the participant to



stay in the group in case someone had to be excluded at a later stage of the experiment. Their

fellow group members allegedly indicated their opinions on a continuum ranging from ‘No, under

no circumstances’ to ‘Yes, by all means’ (should he or she stay) with a middle area for ‘undecided’.

Depending on the condition, the participant was informed that the average response was close

either to one extreme or the other meaning that he or she was either accepted or rejected as a group

member.

Dependent Measures

Manipulation Checks and Auxiliary Measures

Immediately after the respect manipulation, but before the acceptance manipulation, participants

indicated the extent to which they felt that ‘my work group respects me.’ After participants had

experienced both manipulations, perceived respect was measured again with the same item, r¼ 0.38,

p� 0.001, and, as a measurement of perceived acceptance, participants indicated the extent to which ‘I

feel that I am welcome in my work group’ and, on a separate scale, the extent to which ‘I feel excluded

from my work group’ (r¼ 0.65, p< 0.001, after appropriate re-coding). In addition, to check whether

experimentally crossing respect and acceptance caused differential feelings of uncertainty, we gauged

uncertainty with one item (‘I feel uncertain’). Finally, in line with De Cremer’s (2002, p. 1340)

suspicion that respect manipulations easily confound respect with liking, we also measured percep-

tions or feelings of being liked with two items (‘I feel that the members of my work group like me’ and

‘I feel that the members of my work group dislike me’) (r¼ 0.48, p< 0.001, after appropriate re-

coding).

Collective Identification

Identification was measured with five items (Cronbach’s �¼ 0.76, after appropriate re-coding). More

specifically, we measured the personal importance that participants attached to their group member-

ship (‘Membership in my work group is important to the picture I have of myself’ and ‘Membership in

my work group is unimportant to the picture I have of myself’) as well as participants’ personal

evaluation of their group (‘I regret that I am a member of my work group’ and ‘I have a good opinion

of my work group’) (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Finally, we added a more general identification item

(‘I identify with my work group’).

Willingness to Engage in Group-serving Behaviour

Willingness was tapped with five items (Cronbach’s �¼ 0.75). We measured participants’ general

willingness to cooperate with their group during the experimental session as well as their willingness

to take on four different tasks (i.e. structuring the discussion, summarizing the discussion, sketching

the poster, acting as the group’s spokesperson).

These measurements were introduced as checks on participants’ perceptions of and feelings about

their group and their collaboration. Manipulation checks and auxiliary measures preceded—as a

bloc—collective identification items which were followed by willingness items. All ratings were

made on 7-point scales ranging from 0 (not true at all/very low) to 6 (completely true/very high).



RESULTS

Manipulation Checks and Auxiliary Measures

A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with the respect manipulation as a between-subjects

variable was performed on perceived respect measured after the respect manipulation, but before the

acceptance manipulation. It yielded the expected effect of the respect manipulation, F(1, 65)¼ 35.08,

p< 0.001. Participants in the respect condition felt more respected by their fellow group members than

did participants in the disrespect condition, M(respect)¼ 4.91, M(disrespect)¼ 2.88.

At this point, it should be recalled that, after participants had experienced both the respect and

acceptance manipulations, perceived respect was measured a second time, and we also measured

perceived acceptance, perceptions of being liked, and feelings of uncertainty. As to feelings of

uncertainty, a 2� 2 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of acceptance, F(1, 63)¼ 12.79,

p� 0.001, and a significant Acceptance by Respect interaction, F(1, 63)¼ 7.75, p< 0.01. There was

no main effect of respect, F(1, 63)¼ 1.51, ns. The experience of being first respected and then rejected

obviously created increased uncertainty, M(respect, rejection)¼ 4.06, compared with each of the three

other combinations, M(respect, acceptance)¼ 1.17, M(disrespect, acceptance)¼ 1.88, M(disrespect,

rejection)¼ 2.24, which did not differ from each other (according to Tukey-Honest Significant

Differences (Tukey-HSD)). In order to control for these differences, we included the uncertainty

measure as a covariate in all of the following analyses.2 The means reported below are adjusted

accordingly.

A 2� 2 ANCOVA with respect and acceptance as between-subjects variables performed on the

second measurement of perceived respect yielded the expected main effect of the respect manipula-

tion, F(1, 62)¼ 4.34, p< 0.05, whereas the main effect of acceptance and the interaction were both

nonsignificant, Fs� 1.58. Confirming an effective respect manipulation, participants in the respect

condition felt more respected by their fellow group members than did participants in the disrespect

condition, M(respect)¼ 3.91, M(disrespect)¼ 3.17. An analogous analysis on perceived acceptance

yielded the expected main effect of the acceptance manipulation, F(1, 62)¼ 23.79, p< 0.001.

Confirming an effective acceptance manipulation, participants in the acceptance condition felt more

accepted than did participants in the rejection condition, M(acceptance)¼ 4.45, M(rejection)¼ 2.95.

In addition, respect also increased perceived acceptance, F(1, 62)¼ 5.93, p< 0.05, M(respect)¼ 4.04,

M(disrespect)¼ 3.36.

Finally, with regard to the perception of being liked, we observed a significant main effect

of acceptance, F(1, 62)¼ 7.75, p< 0.01, but the main effect of respect and the interaction were

both nonsignificant, Fs� 2.61. Accepted group members more strongly felt they were liked by

their fellow group members than did rejected group members, M(acceptance)¼ 4.11, M(re-

jection)¼ 3.25.

To summarize, four points can be made. First, both measures of perceived respect—the one taken

before the acceptance manipulation as well as the one taken after the acceptance manipulation—

confirmed that the respect manipulation was successful. Second, the acceptance manipulation was

successful as evidenced by the measure of perceived acceptance. Third, unlike the respect manipula-

tion, the acceptance manipulation also affected perceptions of being liked. Fourth, we observed a

carry-over effect of respect on perceived acceptance.

2When added to the basic 2� 2 design, this covariate was significant in all analyses except for the analysis in which collectiveidentification served as the dependent variable. Analyses for our main dependent variables without the covariate yielded thesame results as the analyses with the covariate.



Collective Identification

A 2� 2 ANCOVA with respect and acceptance as between-subjects variables performed on collective

identification revealed significant main effects of respect, F(1, 62)¼ 7.88, p< 0.01, and acceptance,

F(1, 62)¼ 5.68, p< 0.05, but no interaction, F(1, 62)¼ 1.90, ns. Respected group members showed

stronger collective identification than disrespected group members, M(respect)¼ 3.11, M(dis-

respect)¼ 2.27, as did accepted group members relative to rejected group members, M(ac-

ceptance)¼ 3.08, M(rejection)¼ 2.31.

Willingness to Engage in Group-Serving Behaviour

A 2� 2 ANCOVA on overall willingness yielded only a significant main effect of respect,

F(1, 62)¼ 8.59, p< 0.05. Neither the main effect of acceptance nor the interaction was significant,

Fs< 1. Respected group members showed greater willingness to engage in group-serving behaviour

than disrespected group members, M(respect)¼ 3.16, M(disrespect)¼ 2.27.

To summarize so far, the experimental results do not support the assumption that acceptance is the

active ingredient or critical mediating variable underlying the effectiveness of respect. Although we

observed a significant main effect of acceptance on collective identification, the main effect of respect

on the same dependent variable known from previous research (Simon & Sturmer, 2003) remained

intact. What is more, with regard to willingness to engage in group-serving behaviour, acceptance was

ineffective, whereas the respect effect was again replicated in keeping with the literature (see Table 1).

Further Mediation Analyses

As a second strategy to test mediation, we examined whether respect operated via, or over and above,

acceptance by including perceived acceptance as an additional covariate. Note that this type of

mediation analysis is an important supplement to our preceding analyses because the carry-over effect

of the respect manipulation on perceived acceptance indicates that, despite the separate experimental

manipulations of respect and acceptance, the respect manipulation retained some element of

acceptance.

Perceived acceptance was a significant covariate when the dependent variable was collective

identification, �¼ 0.43, t(61)¼ 2.70, p< 0.01, but not when willingness to engage in group-serving

behaviour was the dependent variable, �¼�0.08, t(61)¼�0.45. More importantly, the respect effect

remained significant in both cases, Fs� 4.07, p< 0.05, whereas the original acceptance effect on

collective identification disappeared, F(1, 61)< 1. At the same time, the indirect effect of manipulated

acceptance on collective identification via perceived acceptance was significant, z¼ 2.36, p< 0.05

(Sobel, 1982). Moreover, perceived acceptance played the same mediating role with regard to

Table 1. Collective identification and willingness to engage in group-serving behaviour as a function ofintragroup respect and acceptance (adjusted means)

Respect Disrespect

Acceptance n¼ 18 Rejection n¼ 16 Acceptance n¼ 16 Rejection n¼ 17

Collective identification 3.72 2.51 2.44 2.10Behavioural willingness 3.00 3.32 2.15 2.39



perceptions of being liked. The original acceptance effect disappeared, F(1, 61)< 1, as soon as

perceived acceptance was included as a covariate, �¼ 0.67, t(61)¼ 5.31, p< 0.001, and the indirect

effect of manipulated acceptance on perceptions of being liked via perceived acceptance was

significant, z¼ 3.59, p< 0.001 (Sobel, 1982).

We also used perceptions of being liked as the additional covariate, instead of perceived

acceptance, in the analyses concerning collective identification and willingness to engage in group-

serving behaviour. Again, both respect effects were replicated, Fs� 5.37, p< 0.05, while the

acceptance effect on collective identification was fully mediated by perceptions of being liked,

z¼ 2.05, p< 0.05 (Sobel, 1982).

Finally, we used perceived respect (averaged over both measurements) as the additional covariate in

the analyses concerning collective identification and willingness to engage in group-serving beha-

viour. In both cases, this covariate was significant, �s> 0.29, ts> 2.23, p< 0.05, the original respect

effect disappeared, Fs� 1.67, ns, and the indirect effect of manipulated respect via perceived respect

was significant, zs> 2.03, p< 0.05 (Sobel, 1982). The acceptance effect on collective identification

remained intact, F(1, 61)¼ 6.82, p< 0.05. Similarly, the acceptance effect on perceptions of being

liked remained intact, F(1, 61)¼ 12.46, p� 0.001, when perceived respect was included as the

additional covariate, �¼ 0.49, t(61)¼ 4.61, p< 0.001.3

To summarize, when we controlled for perceived acceptance or perceptions of being liked, all

respect effects remained intact, whereas the original acceptance effects disappeared. When we

controlled for perceived respect, the opposite was true. All acceptance effects remained intact, but

the original respect effects disappeared. Moreover, we established the (corresponding) indirect effects

of manipulated respect via perceived respect and of manipulated acceptance via perceived acceptance

and perceptions of being liked.

DISCUSSION

That people take respect received from others as a message that those others accept them into their

social circle is a plausible assumption with great intuitive appeal. In keeping with this assumption, we

indeed found that the experimental manipulation of intragroup respect (disrespect) resulted in an

increase (decrease) of perceived intragroup acceptance. However, the stronger assumption that

intragroup acceptance also underlies the effectiveness of intragroup respect received no empirical

support. We employed two complementary research strategies, one based on experimental manipula-

tions and one on the additional measurement of the critical variables, but neither produced evidence of

the role of intragroup acceptance as the critical mediating variable or active ingredient of intragroup

respect. At the same time, we were able to replicate and thus demonstrate the robustness of the

facilitative effect of intragroup respect on important aspects of group life such as collective

identification and (intended) group-serving behaviour. What is more, we secured additional evidence

of the internal validity of these respect effects in that we could show that perceived respect actually

mediated the effects of the experimental respect manipulation.

At this point it is worthwhile highlighting the methodological contribution of this article. In social

psychology, mediation analysis, often based solely on measured mediators, is becoming increasingly

popular, if not mandatory. However, this must not make us forget the virtues of our traditional treasures

such as the experimental method. As Sigall and Mills (1998) remind us, measuring the proposed

mediator is not the only way to test hypotheses about underlying processes, nor does this strategy3The acceptance effects were also replicated when only the second measurement of perceived respect served as the additionalcovariate.



allow definitive statements about causal relationships (Haslam & McGarty, 2003, p. 259). We

therefore combined the experimental strategy with the measurement strategy in a complementary

fashion and feel vindicated by the converging results.

In conclusion, the experiment reported in this article casts reasonable doubt on the assumption that

intragroup acceptance is the active ingredient underlying the effectiveness of intragroup respect. This

is not to say that intragroup acceptance is generally ineffective with regard to group life. In fact, we did

find an effect of intragroup acceptance on collective identification. But the parallel respect effect was

not wiped out, nor was there any other evidence that respect effects could be traced back to perceived

intragroup acceptance. In contrast, the acceptance effect was fully mediated by perceived intragroup

acceptance as well as related feelings of being liked by one’s fellow group members—the latter being

another variable that we could rule out as the active ingredient of intragroup respect (but see also,

Branscombe et al., 2002). Although the specific acceptance account tested in this study thus proved

unsatisfactory, there remains the intuitive appeal of the more general idea that respect has something to

do with acceptance, or some variety thereof. For example, acceptance, or more precisely, recognition

as an equal may be an alternative worthy of closer scrutiny in the future. Note, however, that the

emphasis would then shift to the notion of equality, probably in terms of the shared possession of more

abstract qualities (e.g. citizenship or even humanness) and associated rights or entitlements, that

transcends more specific inequalities and interpersonal differences (Sennett, 2003; Simon, Lucken, &

Sturmer, in press).

AUTHORS’ NOTE

Bernd Simon and Stefan Sturmer, Institut fur Psychologie, Christian-Albrechts-Universitat zu Kiel,

Germany. This research was made possible by a grant to Bernd Simon from the Deutsche

Forschungsgemeinschaft (Si 428/4-4).

REFERENCES

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.

Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects ongroup behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753.

De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1335–1341.

Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (2003). Experimental design and causality in social psychological research. In C.Sanson, C. C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.), Handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 235–264). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.

Sennett, R. (2003). Respect. The formation of character in a world of inequality. London: Penguin.Sigall, H., & Mills, J. (1998). Measures of independent variables and mediators are useful in social psychology

experiments: But are they necessary? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 218–226.Simon, B., Lucken, M., & Sturmer, S. (In press). The added value of respect: Reaching across inequality. BritishJournal of Social Psychology.

Simon, B., & Sturmer, S. (2003). Respect for group members: Intragroup determinants of collective identificationand group-serving behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 183–193.



Smith, H., 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 Psychol-ogy, 34, 470–493.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S.Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behaviouralengagement. Philadelphia (PA): Psychology Press.

Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO:Westview.

Wigboldus, D. H. J., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic basesand inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5–18.



in search of the active ingredient of respect: a closer look at the role of acceptance

Documents