Votes without power: Procedural justice as mutual control in majority-minority relations

Assaad E. Azzi, John Jost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In an application of procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989) to the domain of intergroup relations, we investigated justice preferences among members of numerical majority and minority groups as a function of two parameters: the number of representatives allotted to each group, and the decision rule used to determine the outcome (ranging from simple majority vote to unanimity). In the first study, minority group members perceived the combination of proportional representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than all other combinations, and their choices of procedure stressed "mutual control" (when the decision rule exceeds the number of representatives possessed by either group). In a second study, majority group members perceived the combination of equal representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than other procedures, but their choices of procedure did involve a considerable degree of mutual control. These findings suggest that there may be some basis for agreement between majority and minority group members' justice preferences and that both groups may perceive situations of mutual control to be acceptable. A third study involving both majority and minority group members ruled out an interpretation of the previous results in terms of motivation to maintain vs. change the status quo.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)124-155
Number of pages32
JournalJournal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume27
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jan 16 1997

Fingerprint

Minority Groups
Social Justice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Votes without power : Procedural justice as mutual control in majority-minority relations. / Azzi, Assaad E.; Jost, John.

In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 16.01.1997, p. 124-155.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c35f60e0f5304481adec3e0a45139131,
title = "Votes without power: Procedural justice as mutual control in majority-minority relations",
abstract = "In an application of procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989) to the domain of intergroup relations, we investigated justice preferences among members of numerical majority and minority groups as a function of two parameters: the number of representatives allotted to each group, and the decision rule used to determine the outcome (ranging from simple majority vote to unanimity). In the first study, minority group members perceived the combination of proportional representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than all other combinations, and their choices of procedure stressed {"}mutual control{"} (when the decision rule exceeds the number of representatives possessed by either group). In a second study, majority group members perceived the combination of equal representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than other procedures, but their choices of procedure did involve a considerable degree of mutual control. These findings suggest that there may be some basis for agreement between majority and minority group members' justice preferences and that both groups may perceive situations of mutual control to be acceptable. A third study involving both majority and minority group members ruled out an interpretation of the previous results in terms of motivation to maintain vs. change the status quo.",
author = "Azzi, {Assaad E.} and John Jost",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
day = "16",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "124--155",
journal = "Journal of Applied Social Psychology",
issn = "0021-9029",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Votes without power

T2 - Procedural justice as mutual control in majority-minority relations

AU - Azzi, Assaad E.

AU - Jost, John

PY - 1997/1/16

Y1 - 1997/1/16

N2 - In an application of procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989) to the domain of intergroup relations, we investigated justice preferences among members of numerical majority and minority groups as a function of two parameters: the number of representatives allotted to each group, and the decision rule used to determine the outcome (ranging from simple majority vote to unanimity). In the first study, minority group members perceived the combination of proportional representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than all other combinations, and their choices of procedure stressed "mutual control" (when the decision rule exceeds the number of representatives possessed by either group). In a second study, majority group members perceived the combination of equal representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than other procedures, but their choices of procedure did involve a considerable degree of mutual control. These findings suggest that there may be some basis for agreement between majority and minority group members' justice preferences and that both groups may perceive situations of mutual control to be acceptable. A third study involving both majority and minority group members ruled out an interpretation of the previous results in terms of motivation to maintain vs. change the status quo.

AB - In an application of procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989) to the domain of intergroup relations, we investigated justice preferences among members of numerical majority and minority groups as a function of two parameters: the number of representatives allotted to each group, and the decision rule used to determine the outcome (ranging from simple majority vote to unanimity). In the first study, minority group members perceived the combination of proportional representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than all other combinations, and their choices of procedure stressed "mutual control" (when the decision rule exceeds the number of representatives possessed by either group). In a second study, majority group members perceived the combination of equal representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than other procedures, but their choices of procedure did involve a considerable degree of mutual control. These findings suggest that there may be some basis for agreement between majority and minority group members' justice preferences and that both groups may perceive situations of mutual control to be acceptable. A third study involving both majority and minority group members ruled out an interpretation of the previous results in terms of motivation to maintain vs. change the status quo.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031574607&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031574607&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0031574607

VL - 27

SP - 124

EP - 155

JO - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

SN - 0021-9029

IS - 2

ER -