THE INFLUENCE OF LEGITIMACY APPRAISALS ON THE DETERMINANTS OF ENTITLEMENT BELIEFS

We conducted a laboratory experiment to determine whether legitimacy appraisals (i.e., the extent to which an outcome distribution is thought to be fair and just) would influence the extent to which entitlement beliefs about wages were based on in-group wage comparison information and perceptions of one's own performance. To manipulate legitimacy appraisals, participants were led to believe that the wage allocation procedure was unbiased, potentially biased, or biased. In addition, they were exposed to wage comparison information, indicating that in-group members had earned more than out-group members in the past or vice versa. Results show that, when procedures were thought to be unbiased, participants' beliefs about the amounts they deserved to be paid were influenced more by in-group wage comparison information than perceptions of their own performance. In contrast, when participants perceived allocation procedures to be biased, entitlement beliefs were influenced more by perceptions of their own performance than by in-group wage comparison information. These findings are presented in terms of the paradoxical contentment often observed among members of objectively disadvantaged groups.