{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027979274611398965, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.527027027027027, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two experimental tests of relational models of procedural justice: non-instrumental voice and authority group membership.

In both a laboratory experiment (in Australia) using university as the basis of group membership, and a scenario experiment (in India) using religion as the basis of group membership, we observe more favourable respect and fairness ratings in response to an in-group authority than an out-group authority who administers non-instrumental voice. Moreover, we observe in our second experiment that reported likelihood of protest (herein called "social-change voice") was relatively high following non-instrumental voice from an out-group authority, but relatively low following non-instrumental voice from an in-group authority. Our findings are consistent with relational models of procedural justice, and extend the work by examining likely use of alternative forms of voice as well as highlighting the relative importance of instrumentality.