Fig 1.
Panel A outlines key hypothesized processes, explicating how two forms of group-based treatment–an oft-studied form, fair treatment, and a second form proposed here, distinctive treatment–differentially shape individuals’ perceived belonging and standing in groups respectively. These processes are tested in Studies 1–6. Panel B explicates a key implication of such treatment, for individuals’ mental health. This is explained through identity-based processes outlined in past work [27]. These more proximal processes are tested in Studies 4–6. Portions are shaded to illustrate how processes outlined in distinct literatures are brought together. The portion in grey reflects processes grounded in the procedural justice literature. The portion in white reflects processes evinced in the social cure literature.
Table 1.
Study 1a, 4, 5 and 6 factor analyses demonstrating distinctions between distinctive and fair treatment, and between distinctive treatment and intragroup standing, across three types of groups (work organizations, student communities, racial/ethnic minority groups).
Table 2.
Study 1a (work organization) regression analysis, distinctive treatment predicting intragroup standing over other relevant constructs.
Fig 2.
Testing the roles of distinctive and fair treatment in predicting intragroup standing and belonging respectively, using SEM with standardized coefficients (standard errors). Factor loadings are omitted here, but all latent factors predicted their manifest indicators at p < .001. Correlations between distinctive and fair treatment (r = .41, p < .001) and intragroup standing and belonging (r = .28, p = .003) were specified. *** p ≤ .001.
Fig 3.
Experimental effect of distinctive treatment (DT; compared to a control condition) on individuals’ sense of standing (d = .30) and belonging (d = .10, ns) in their work organization (measured on 1–7 scales; N = 453). Means represent estimates at the mean of the covariate. Error bars represent standard errors.
Fig 4.
Experimental effects of distinctive treatment (DT) or fair treatment (FT; each compared to a control condition) on individuals’ sense of standing (DT, d = .21; FT, d = .18, ns) and belonging (DT, d = .04, ns; FT, d = .20) in their work organization (measured on 1–7 scales; N = 427). Means represent estimates at the mean of covariates (as reported in main text). Error bars represent standard errors.
Fig 5.
Results of Study 4 (work organizations), Study 5 (student community), and Study 6 (racial/ethnic minority groups).
Results of each study demonstrated the differentiated roles of distinctive and fair treatment and the downstream implications of such treatment for individuals’ group identity and health. Standardized path coefficients (standard errors) are shown. Study 4/5/6 path coefficients are listed top/middle/bottom. Factor loadings are omitted here though all predicted their respective manifest indicators (p ≤ .001). Correlations between distinctive and fair treatment (Study 4/5/6, r = .47/.54/.44, p ≤ .001) and intragroup standing and belonging (Study 4/5/6, r = .39/.29/.30, p ≤ .001) were also specified. *** p ≤ .001; ** p ≤ .01; + p = .06; † p = .10. a direct path coefficient (Study 4, 5, 6): .19*** (.06), .18† (.11), .29*** (.07); b direct path coefficient (Study 4, 5, 6): .26*** (.10), .16+ (.25), .16** (.15).