Two laboratory experiments investigated reactions to a majority rule social decision scheme. In Experiment 1, members of the voting majority perceived the decision process to be fairer; were more satisfied with the decision outcome, and performed at higher levels than did members of the voting minority. Implementation of a nonrepresentative decision (i.e., in which a decision maker failed to follow the recommendations of the majority) resulted in more extreme reactions by majority, as compared with minority, members. In Experiment 2, an attempt at minority conciliation was made based on either a unilateral decision by a decision maker or the voice of participants. Both the conciliatory offer and the manner in which the offer was enacted had independent and positive effects on minority perceptions and performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Azzi, A. (1992). Procedural justice in the allocation of power in intergroup relations: Studies in the United States and South Africa. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 736-747.
2.
Baldwin, T. T. , Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of participation: Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 51-65.
3.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structured models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
4.
Bies, R. J. , & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.
5.
Bies, R. J. , & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflicts. Communication Research, 15, 381-399.
6.
Brockner, J. , & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 187-208.
7.
Castore, C. , & Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Determinants of support for group decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 75-92.
8.
Doll, W. J. , and Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12, 258-274.
9.
Earley, P. C. , & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 378-390.
10.
Earley, P. C. , & Lind, A. E. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.
11.
Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the reconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 228-297.
14.
Hunton, J. E. (1994). The theoretical framework of procedural justice applied to end-user participation in the development of accounting information systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.
15.
Hunton, J. E. , & Price, K. H. (1997). Effects of the user participation process and task meaningfulness on key information system outcomes. Management Science, 43, 797-812.
16.
Huo, J. Y. , Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns. Psychological Science, 7, 40-45.
17.
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, F. P. (1994) .Joining together group theory and group skills. Neeham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
Lind, E. , Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
19.
Lind, E. A. , & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
20.
Miller, C. E. , Jackson, P., Mueller, J., & Schersching, S. (1987). Some social psychological effects of group rules, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 325-332.
21.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
22.
Shapiro, D. L. , & Brett, J. M. (1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1167-1177.
23.
Tyler, T. R. , & Bies, R. (1990). Interpersonal aspects of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology in business settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Tyler, T. R. , & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zana (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic Press.
