Voice in Political Decision-Making: The Effect of Group Voice on Perceived Trustworthiness of Decision Makers and Subsequent Acceptance of Decisions

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 173-186

  Terwel, Bart W ^a   Harinck, Fieke ^a   Ellemers, Naomi ^a   Daamen, Dancker D L ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology; group voice; political decision making; procedural fairness; trustworthiness

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEADERSHIP; MALE; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TRUST;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; LEADERSHIP; MALE; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; TRUST;

EID: 77953899827     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0019977     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baron R.M., and Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986) 1173-1182
2. Bies R.J., and Shapiro D.L. Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal 31 (1988) 676-685
3. Brockner J. Perceived fairness and survivors' reactions to layoffs, or how downsizing organizations can do well by doing good. Social Justice Research 7 (1994) 345-363
4. Brockner J., Heuer L., Siegel P.A., Wiesenfeld B., Martin C., Grover S., and Bjorgvinsson S. The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1998) 394-407
5. Brockner J., Siegel P.A., Daly J., Tyler T.R., and Martin C. When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1997) 558-583
6. Brockner J., Wiesenfeld B.M., and Martin C.L. Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors' reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63 (1995) 59-68
7. De Cremer D., and Tyler T.R. The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (2007) 639-649
8. De Cremer D., and Van Hiel A. Effects of other person's fair treatment on one's own emotions and behaviors: The moderating role of how much the other cares for you. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100 (2006) 231-249
9. Dirks K.T., and Ferrin D.L. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science 12 (2001) 450-467
10. Druckman J.N., and Kam C.D. Students as experimental participants: A defense of the "narrow data base." Working paper series (WP-09-05) (2009), Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
11. Flash Eurobarometer. The European Constitution: Post-referendum survey in the Netherlands (2005). http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl172_en.pdf Brussels, European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl172_en.pdf
12. Folger R. Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (1977) 108-119
13. Huijts N.M.A., Midden C.J.H., and Meijnders A.L. Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 2780-2789
14. Konovsky M., and Pugh S. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal 37 (1994) 656-669
15. Kray L., and Lind E.A. The injustices of others: Social reports and the integration of others' experiences in organizational justice judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 906-924
16. Kuklinski J.H., and Hurley N.L. On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics 56 (1994) 729-751
17. LaTour S. Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (1978) 1531-1545
18. Lee C.-J., Scheufele D.A., and Lewenstein B.V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Science Communication 27 (2005) 240-267
19. Leung K., Tong K.K., and Lind E.A. Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (2007) 476-489
20. Lind E.A., Kray L., and Thompson L. The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others' unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75 (1998) 1-22
21. Löfstedt R.E., and Renn O. The Brent Spar controversy: An example of risk communication gone wrong. Risk Analysis 17 (1997) 131-136
22. Lupia A. Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review 88 (1994) 63-76
23. McDermott M.L. Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1997) 270-283
24. Nisbet M.C. The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (2005) 90-112
25. Oldham G. The impact of supervisory characteristics on goal acceptance. Academy of Management Journal 18 (1975) 461-475
26. Peterson R.S. Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (1999) 313-324
27. Popkin S.L. The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. 2nd ed. (1994), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
28. Preacher K.J., Rucker D.D., and Hayes A.F. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research 42 (2007) 185-227
29. Scheufele D.A., and Lewenstein B.V. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7 (2005) 659-667
30. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 (1999) 2093-2106
31. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20 (2000) 195-203
32. Skitka L.J. Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2002) 588-597
33. Smith H.J., Tyler T.R., Huo Y.J., Ortiz D.J., and Lind E.A. The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34 (1998) 470-493
34. Sobel M.E. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In: Leinhart S. (Ed). Sociological methodology 1982 (1982), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 290-312
35. Ståhl T., Van Prooijen J.-W., and Vermunt R. On the psychology of procedural justice: Reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities. European Journal of Social Psychology 34 (2004) 173-189
36. Terwel B.W., Harinck F., Ellemers N., and Daamen D.D.L. Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Risk Analysis 29 (2009) 1129-1140
37. Terwel B.W., Harinck F., Ellemers E., and Daamen D.D.L. How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 290-299
38. Tyler T.R. The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1989) 830-838
39. Tyler T.R. Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance (1990), Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
40. Tyler T.R. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (1994) 850-863
41. Tyler T.R., Degoey P., and Smith H. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (1996) 913-930
42. Tyler T.R., and Lind E.A. A relational model of authority in groups. In: Zanna M. (Ed). Advances in experimental social psychology (1992), Academic Press, New York 115-191
43. Van den Bos K., and Lind E.A. The psychology of own versus others' treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (2001) 1324-1333
44. Van den Bos K., Wilke H.A.M., and Lind E.A. When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1998) 1449-1458
45. Walker L., LaTour S., Lind E.A., and Thibaut J. Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4 (1974) 295-310