A relational model of authority in groups¶
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Legitimacy
- Naming legitimacy lets institutional designers attend to the belief-and-behavior foundations, not only the formal structure.
This sourceDevelops the relational model: perceived procedural fairness signals trust, neutrality, and standing in the group, which in turn drives voluntary acceptance of authoritative decisions—reframing procedural justice as identity-relevant communication rather than instrumental control.
- Naming legitimacy lets institutional designers attend to the belief-and-behavior foundations, not only the formal structure.
- Procedural Fairness (Due Process)
- … liberty interest in their education, triggering procedural due-process rights—a doctrinal commitment that aligns with Tyler and Lind's (1992) "relational model" of authority, in which trust, neutrality, and standing communicated through procedure shape whether persons accept the authority that decides their case.
This sourceDevelops the relational model: perceived procedural fairness signals trust, neutrality, and standing in the group, which in turn drives voluntary acceptance of authoritative decisions—reframing procedural justice as identity-relevant communication rather than instrumental control.
- … liberty interest in their education, triggering procedural due-process rights—a doctrinal commitment that aligns with Tyler and Lind's (1992) "relational model" of authority, in which trust, neutrality, and standing communicated through procedure shape whether persons accept the authority that decides their case.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:aa18020b0050 · see in the full table