Editing Procedural justice (section)

=== Group engagement model ===
Models have also been proposed to understand the psychological basis of justice. One of the more recent of these models is the group engagement model.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Tyler|first=Tom|author2=Blader Steven|title=The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Review|year=2003|volume=7|issue=4|pages=349–361|doi=10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_07|pmid=14633471|s2cid=25509874}}</ref> The group engagement model (GEM), devised by [[Tom R. Tyler]] and Steven L. Blader, incorporates past psychological theories to explain the underlying psychological processes of procedural justice.  Based on [[social identity theory]] and relational models of procedural justice, this model suggests that a group's procedural justice process influences members' identification with the group, which in turn influences their type of engagement within the group.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}}

According to the model, group engagement is seen as either mandatory or discretionary behavior. Mandatory behavior is defined by Tyler and Blader as behavior that is required by the group and thus is motivated by incentives and sanctions. Conversely, discretionary behavior is motivated by internal values and  is seen as more cooperative and  therefore ideal within a group.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}} Depending on the procedural justice processes of the group, the social identity of the members will be influenced accordingly and different values will be emphasised. The more a member agrees with the type of procedural justice employed, the more they will identify with their group. This increased identification results in the internalization of the group's values and attitudes for the group member. This creates a circular relationship as the group's procedural justice processes will affect group members' levels of identification and, as a consequence, this level and type of identification will affect their own values of what is fair and unfair. This, in turn, will then affect how the individuals will engage with their group, with higher identification leading to discretionary and more desirable behavior.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}}