This study aims to identify the types of city council decision-making processes that influence public perceptions of procedural fairness and the acceptability of decisions. Using an online experimental scenario survey conducted in Japan, this study found that, given the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and when the decision is reached through a compromise among council members, people tend to feel that the process is fair and accept the decision even when it is unfavourable to them. This result is important for the governance of many advanced countries with low economic growth rates but great public demands. Additionally, this study highlights the process preferences of the public, which has received little attention compared with research on policy preferences.
AguinisHermanBradleyKyle J (2014) Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies. Organizational Research Methods17(4): 351–371.
2.
AndersonChristopher JListhaugOlaBlaisAndreBowlerShaunDonovanTodd (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
ArnesenSveinung (2017) Legitimacy from Decision-Making Influence and Outcome Favourability: Results from general population survey experiments. Political Studies65(1 Suppl): 146–161.
4.
ArnesenSveinungPetersYvette (2018) The Legitimacy of Representation: How descriptive, formal, and responsiveness representation affect the acceptability of political decisions. Comparative Political Studies51(7): 868–899.
5.
AtzmüllerChristianeSteinerPeter M (2010) Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research. Methodology6(3): 128–138.
6.
AzziAssaad E (1992) Procedural Justice and the Allocation of Power in Intergroup Relations: Studies in the United States and South Africa. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18(6): 736–747.
7.
AzziAssaad E (1993) Group Representation and Procedural Justice in Multigroup Decision-Making Bodies. Social Justice Research6(2): 195–218.
8.
BowlerShaun (2017) Trustees, Delegates, and Responsiveness in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies50(6): 766–793.
9.
CarmanChristopher Jan (2006) Public Preferences for Parliamentary Representation in the UK: An overlooked link?Political Studies54(1): 103–122.
10.
ClaytonAmandaO’BrienDiana ZPiscopoJennifer M (2019) All Male Panels? Representation and democratic legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science63(1): 1–17.
11.
DohertyDavidWolakJennifer (2012) When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating procedural fairness. Political Behavior34(2): 301–323.
12.
EsaiassonPeterPerssonMikaelGilljamMikaelLindholmTorun (2016) Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance. British Journal of Political Science49: 291–314.
13.
FolgerRobertRosenfieldDavidGroveJanetCorkranLouise (1979) Effects of “Voice” and Peer Opinions on Responses to Inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37(12): 2253–2261.
14.
GanglAmy (2003) Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior25(2): 119–149.
15.
GibsonJames LCaldeiraGregory ASpenceLester Kenyatta (2005) Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly58(2): 187–201.
16.
HarbridgeLaurelMalhotraNeilHarrisonBrian F (2014) Public Preferences for Bipartisanship in the Policymaking Process. Legislative Studies Quarterly39(3): 327–355.
17.
HibbingJohn RTheiss-MorseElizabeth (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
18.
KaplanMartin FMillerCharles E (1987) Group Decision Making and Normative Versus Informational Influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53(2): 306–313.
19.
KarpowitzChristopher FMendelbergTaliShakerLee (2012) Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review106(3): 533–547.
20.
LindE AllanTylerTom R (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
21.
MagalhãesPedro CAguiar-ConrariaLuís (2019) Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities. Political Psychology40(1): 165–181.
22.
NakataniMiho (2011) Comparison of Role Perceptions regarding Representatives between Local Legislators and the Public in Japan. Meiji Gakuin Law Journal90: 447–480.
23.
NorrisPippa (2011) Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
PitkinHanna Fenichel (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
25.
SkitkaLinda JMullenElizabeth (2002) Understanding Judgments of Fairness in a Real-World Political Context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin28(10): 1419–1429.
26.
StrebelMichael AndreaKüblerDanielMarcinkowskiFrank (2019) The Importance of Input and Output Legitimacy in Democratic Governance: Evidence from a population-based survey experiment in four West European countries. European Journal of Political Research58(2): 488–513.
27.
TajfelHenriTurnerJohn (1986) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In WorchelStephen (ed.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
28.
ThibautJohn WWalkerLaurens (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
ThibautJohn WWalkerLaurens (1978) A Theory of Procedure. California Law Review66: 541–566.
30.
TylerTom R (1994) Governing Amid Diversity: The effect of fair decision-making procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law & Society Review28(4): 809–831.
31.
TylerTom R (2000) Social Justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology35(2): 117–125.
32.
TylerTom RRasinskiKennethSpodickNancy (1985) Influence of Voice on Satisfaction with Leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology48(1): 72–81.
33.
TylerTom RBoeckmannRobert JSmithHeather JHuoYuen J (1997) Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
34.
UlbigStacy G (2008) Voice Is Not Enough: The importance of influence in political trust and policy assessments. The Public Opinion Quarterly72(3): 523–539.
35.
Van HamCarolienThomassenJacquesAartsKeesAndewegRudy (2017) Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis: Explaining Trends and Cross-National Differences in Established Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
WalkerLaurensLatourStephenEAllan LindThibautJohn (1974) Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology4(4): 295–310.
37.
WilkingJennifer (2011) The Portability of Electoral Procedural Fairness: Evidence from experimental studies in China and the United States. Political Behavior33(1): 139–159.
38.
WuXuan-NaWangEr-Ping (2013) Outcome Favorability as a Boundary Condition to Voice Effect on People’s Reactions to Public Policymaking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology43(2): 329–337.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
