Inspired by philosophical reasoning about the connection between equality and freedom, we examined whether experiences of (equality-based) respect increase perceived autonomy. This link was tested with generalized experiences of respect and autonomy people make in their daily lives (Study 1) and with more specific experiences of employees at the workplace (Study 2). In both studies, respect strongly and independently contributed to perceived autonomy over and above other forms of social recognition (need-based care and achievement-based social esteem) and further affected (life/work) satisfaction. Study 3 experimentally confirmed the hypothesized causal influence of respect on perceived autonomy and demonstrated that this effect further translates into social cooperation. The respect–cooperation link was simultaneously mediated by perceived autonomy and superordinate collective identification. We discuss how the recognition approach, which differentiates between respect, care, and social esteem, can enrich research on autonomy.
AndersonJ. (1995). Translator’s introduction. In HonnethA. (Ed.), The struggle for recognition (pp. x-xxi). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
2.
AndersonJ.HonnethA. (2005). Autonomy, vulnerability, recognition and justice. In ChristmanJ.AndersonJ. (Eds.), Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism (pp. 127-149). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610325.008
3.
AutinF.ButeraF. (2016). Editorial: Institutional determinants of social inequalities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2027. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02027
4.
BaardP. P.DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
5.
BachmannA. S.SimonB. (2014). Society matters: The mediational role of social recognition in the relationship between victimization and life satisfaction among gay men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 195-201. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2007
6.
BaldwinT. (2009). Recognition: Personal and political. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 8, 311-328. doi:10.1177/1470594X09105391
7.
BranscombeN. R.SpearsR.EllemersN.DoosjeB. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744-753. doi:10.1177/0146167202289004
8.
BrewerM. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511996481.005
9.
ChirkovV.RyanR. M.KimY.KaplanU. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97
10.
ConoverP. J. (2009). The politics of recognition: A social psychological perspective. In BorgidaE.FedericoC. M.SullivanJ. L. (Eds.), The political psychology of democratic citizenship (pp. 176-204). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
ConwayN.BrinerR. B. (2002). Full-time versus part-time employees: Understanding the links between work status, the psychological contract, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 279-301. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1857
12.
DarwallS. L. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88, 36-49. doi:10.1086/292054
13.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
14.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 14-23. doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
15.
DeckerC.Van QuaquebekeN. (2015). Getting respect from a boss you respect: How different types of respect interact to explain subordinates’ job satisfaction as mediated by self-determination. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 543-556. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2291-8
16.
DeutschM. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31, 37-50. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x
17.
DienerE. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
18.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
19.
EllemersN.DoosjeB.SpearsR. (2004). Sources of respect: The effects of being liked by ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 155-172. doi:10.1002/ejsp.196
20.
FiskeA. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689
21.
GilletN.VallerandR. J.LafrenièreM.-A. K. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation as a function of age: The mediating role of autonomy support. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 77-95. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9170-2
22.
GroverS. L. (2014). Unraveling respect in organization studies. Human Relations, 67, 27-51. doi:10.1177/0018726713484944
23.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
HegelG. W. F. (1969). Jenaer Realphilosophie: Vorlesungsm-anuskripte zur Philosophie der Natur und des Geistes von 1805-1806 [Lecture manuscripts for the philosophy of the nature and the spirit 1805-1806] (HoffmeisterJ., Ed.). Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meiner.
25.
HonnethA. (1995). The struggle for recognition. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
26.
HonnethA. (2003). Redistribution as recognition: A response to Nancy Fraser. In FraserN.HonnethA. (Eds.), Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (pp. 110-197). London, England: Verso. doi:10.3366/per.2005.1.2.215
27.
HonnethA. (2004). Recognition and justice: Outline of a plural theory of justice. Acta Sociologica, 47, 351-364. doi:10.1177/0001699304048668
28.
HonnethA. (2012). The I in We: Studies in the theory of recognition. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
29.
HuntJ. W.SaulP. N. (1975). The relationship of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in males and females. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 690-702. doi:10.2307/255372
30.
HuoY. J.BinningK. R.MolinaL. E. (2010). Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 200-212. doi:10.1177/0146167209356787
31.
InglehartR.FoaR.PetersonC.WelzelC. (2008). Development, freedom, and rising happiness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 264-285. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00078.x
32.
JaffeeD. (1989). Gender inequality in workplace autonomy and authority. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 375-390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6781.1995.tb00031.x
33.
KallebergA. L.Van BurenM. E. (1996). Is bigger better? Explaining the relationship between organization size and job rewards. American Sociological Review, 61, 47-66.
34.
KantI. (1977). Die Metaphysik der Sitten [The metaphysics of morals]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Suhrkamp.
35.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (SEM). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234-249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
37.
LevesqueC.ZuehlkeA. N.StanekL. R.RyanR. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: A comparative study based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68-84. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68
38.
LloydS.StreinerD.HahnE.ShannonS. (1994). Development of the emergency physician job satisfaction measurement instrument. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 12, 1-10. doi:10.1016/0735-6757(94)90187-2
39.
MoksnesU. K.EspnesG. A. (2013). Self-esteem and life satisfaction in adolescents-gender and age as potential moderators. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2921-2928. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0427-4
40.
MuellerC. W.McCloskeyJ. C. (1990). Nurses’ job satisfaction: A proposed measure. Nursing Research, 39(2), 113-116. doi:10.1097/00006199-199003000-00014
41.
MyersR. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Duxbury.
42.
NussbaumM. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
PhilippeF. L.KoestnerR.Beaulieu-PelletierG.LecoursS. (2011). The role of need satisfaction as a distinct and basic psychological component of autobiographical memories: A look at well-being. Journal of Personality, 79, 905-938. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00710.x
44.
RawlsJ. (2005). Columbia Classics in Philosophy: Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
45.
RengerD.MommertA.RengerS.SimonB. (2016). When less equal is less human: Intragroup (dis)respect and the experience of being human. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 553-563. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1135865
46.
RengerD.SimonB. (2011). Social recognition as an equal: The role of equality-based respect in group life. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 501-507. doi:10.1002/ejsp.814
47.
RogersK. M.AshforthB. E. (2014). Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as “we” and “me”. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206314557159
48.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
49.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will?Journal of Personality, 74, 1557-1585. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x
50.
Sanchez-MazasM.CasiniA. (2009). To climb or not to climb? When minorities stick to the floor. In ButeraF.LevineJ. M. (Eds.), Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and inclusion (pp. 38-54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
SimonB. (2007). Respect, equality, and power: A social psychological perspective. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung - Zeitschrift für angewandte Sozialpsychologie, 38, 309-326. doi:10.1007/s11612-007-0027-2
52.
SimonB.GrabowH. (2014). To be respected and to respect: The challenge of mutual respect in intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 39-53. doi:10.1111/bjso.12019
53.
SimonB.MommertA.RengerD. (2015). Reaching across group boundaries: Respect from outgroup members facilitates recategorization as a common group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 616-628. doi:10.1111/bjso.12112
54.
SimonB.OakesP. (2006). Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59, 105-139. doi:10.1177/0018726706062760
55.
SimonB.StürmerS. (2003). Respect for group members: Intragroup determinants of collective identification and group-serving behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 183-193. doi:10.1177/0146167202239043
56.
SleebosE.EllemersN.de GilderD. (2006). The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 413-427. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.002
57.
SpearsR.EllemersN.DoosjeB. (2005). Let me count the ways in which I respect thee: Does competence compensate or compromise lack of liking from the group?European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 263-279. doi:10.1002/ejsp.248
58.
SpectorP. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713. doi:10.1007/BF00929796
59.
TindaleR. S.KulikC. T.ScottL. A. (1991). Individual and group feedback and performance: An attributional perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 41-62. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1201_4
60.
TurnerJ. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 1-22. doi:10.1002/ejsp.244
61.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
62.
United Nation General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. New York, NY: United Nations.
63.
Van QuaquebekeN.EckloffT. (2010). Defining respectful leadership: What it is, how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 343-358. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0087-z
64.
Van QuaquebekeN.HenrichD. C.EckloffT. (2007). “It’s not tolerance I’m asking for, it’s respect!” A conceptual framework to differentiate between tolerance, acceptance and (two types of) respect. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38, 185-200. doi:10.1007/s11612-007-0015-6
65.
VansteenkisteM.SimonsJ.LensW.SheldonK. M.DeciE. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
66.
WeinsteinN.HodginsH. S.RyanR. M. (2010). Autonomy and control in dyads: Effects on interaction quality and joint creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1603-1617. doi:10.1177/0146167210386385
67.
WelzelC.InglehartR. (2010). Agency, values, and well-being: A human development model. Social Indicators Research, 97, 43-63. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9557-z
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
