Votes Without Power:Procedural Justice as Mutual Control in Majority-Minority Relations1

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.     

Conflict's consequences: effects of social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent group functioning and performance

Two studies tested the effects of social motives during negotiation on postnegotiation group performance. In both experiments, a prosocial or a proself motivation was induced, and participants negotiated in 3-person groups about a joint market. In Experiment 1, groups subsequently performed an advertisement task. Consistent with the authors' predictions, results showed that proself groups performed worse on the convergent aspects of this task but better on the divergent aspects than prosocial groups. In Experiment 2, the authors manipulated social motive and negotiation (negotiation vs. no negotiation), and groups performed a creativity task (requiring divergent performance) or a planning task (requiring convergent performance). Proself groups showed greater dedication, functioned more effectively, and performed better than prosocial groups on the creativity task, whereas prosocial groups showed greater dedication, functioned more effectively, and performed better than proself groups on the planning task, and these effects only occurred when the task was preceded by group negotiation.     

Integrative and Distributive Negotiation in Small Groups: Effects of Task Structure, Decision Rule, and Social Motive

This study examined the interactive effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive on small-group negotiation processes and outcomes. Three-person groups negotiated either within an asymmetrical task structure (in which a majority of group members have compatible interests) or within a symmetrical task structure (in which no such majority exists). Groups negotiated either under unanimity rule or under majority rule, and group members were either egoistically or prosocially motivated. Results revealed cumulative main effects and the predicted three-way interaction: Groups in an asymmetrical task structure engaged in more distributive and less integrative behavior, reached lower joint outcomes, and experienced a less positive group climate especially when they had an egoistic rather than prosocial motivation and unanimity rather than majority rule applied. Theoretical implications and avenues for future research are discussed.     

Group Performance Depends on the Majority Rule

Some group decisions require a two-thirds or three-quarters majority of the people voting; others require only a simple majority. Does the accuracy of a group's decision making depend on which majority rule is used? A signal detection theory analysis was used to answer this question. Each member of a group was presented with a noisy display of either a signal or a nonsignal, and then each member cast a yes or no vote for the existence of a signal. The group decision was determined by a majority rule of the members' votes. Normative groups and groups of 5 or 7 people exhibited the same behavior: Performance was best when the group used a simple-majority rule and decreased when the group used more stringent rules. The worst performance was produced by a unanimous rule. Some group members adopted more liberal response criteria when the majority rule was made more stringent.     

The Silent Majority: Understanding and Increasing Majority Group Responses to Discrimination

Although strong norms exist against discrimination, majority group members are surprisingly unlikely to respond assertively to discrimination when they witness it. A number of factors contribute to majority group members' nonresponse, including lack of intergroup contact, motivation not to see discrimination, unsupportive social norms, and the sense that only members of affected groups are entitled to respond to discrimination. This paper reviews the published evidence supporting this pattern and presents a model of targeted social referencing, whereby majority group members look to, and are uniquely influenced by, the opinions of minority group members in the domain of discrimination. This article reviews the causes and implications of targeted social referencing and proposes interventions aimed at increasing majority group responses to discrimination.     

Effects of Consensus Information and Task Demonstrability on Preference-Consistent Information Evaluation and Decision Quality in Group Decision Making

Groups often fail to solve hidden profiles even when all information is exchanged. This is partly due to biased evaluation of information. We examined the effects of consensus information and task demonstrability on preference-consistent information evaluation and decision quality. The results showed that the evaluation of unshared but not shared information was moderated by consensus information and task demonstrability. For unshared information, majority members exhibited a higher evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent information than minority members. Task demonstrability reduced the evaluation bias only when group members received no information about the other members' preferences. Finally, majority members were less likely to solve the hidden profile than minority members, and this was partially mediated by the evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent unshared information.     

Differences Between Minority,Majority, and Unanimous Group Members in the Communication of Information

This article integrates research on minority influence and information sampling in groups. The traditional information‐sampling paradigm implies that the discussion bias for common over unique information affects all types of groups universally. We proposed an alternative in which information sampling depends on the composition of opinions. We proposed that groups with a minority opinion may focus more on unique information and that a minority opinion may lead majority members to consider more preference‐inconsistent information. In a study that tested how minority, majority, and unanimous group members differ in their discussion of information, results lent no support for the alternative conception of information sampling. However, when the minority prevailed, minority members repeated significantly more common information than when the majority prevailed.     

Minority influence: The effect of majority reactionaries and defectors,and minority and majority compromisers,upon majority opinion and attraction

The effects of shifting opinions within a group upon majority opinion, communication between members and perceived attractiveness of other members were studied. Each subject perceived himself to be a member of the majority in a group whose opinion was divided 6–2 on an important issue. But later one to three group members changed their vote. Six conditions of change were established: Control, majority reactionary, majority compromise, majority defection (5-3), minority compromise, minority compromise plus majority reactionary. Only majority compromise or defection affected majority opinion (private and public). Majority members were disliked when they deviated from majority opinion, but particularly so when they shifted toward minority opinion. Minority members were liked most when they induced a majority member to compromise (but not defect). Majority communication to minority occurred most when the minority was compromising, but most disagreement with minority opinion was expressed when a majority member had either compromised or defected.     

Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.     

Evaluating Political Acculturation Strategies: The Perspective of the Majority and Other Minority Groups

Applying the acculturation framework to the political domain, this research examines how Dutch majority members and members of different minority groups evaluate the political acculturation strategies of an immigrant‐origin group. Using an experimental vignette design (N = 664), the results show that the strategy of political assimilation (only advance the interests of society) was evaluated most positively, followed by integration (advance the interest of society and of the minority group), and then separation (only advance the interest of the minority group). This was found for the native Dutch as well as the immigrant‐origin groups. This suggest that minority members do not view minority outgroups as potential allies to counter the dominance of the majority group, but rather as competitors for political influence. Furthermore, the role of dual identification for the evaluation of ingroup political acculturation depended on the type of political acculturation strategy.     

Group size,controllability of group membership,and comparative dimension as determinants of intergroup discrimination

We expected that, when group members cannot control their group membership, majority members show ingroup favouritism on task-relevant dimension, whereas minority members were expected to show ingroup favouritism on task-irrelevant dimension (hypothesis I) In addition, it was expected that intergroup comparisons will change when group membership changes from uncontrollable to controllable. Based on Social Identity Theory, two alternative hypotheses were explored: Compared with uncontrollable settings, ingroup bias will decrease (2a) or increase (2b) in controllable settings. Ninety-two subjects were divided into four groups (minority versus majority, controllable versus uncontrollable group membership), allegedly on the basis of their essay writing style. The results supported the first hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a received support among the majority members and hypothesis 2b among the minority members. The findings are discussed in terms of Social Identity Theory and the effect the perceived control of group membership and the dimension may have on intergroup comparisons.     

Influences of sex composition,decision rule,and decision consequences in small group policy making

Previous research has indicated sex differences in style of interaction for members in small groups. It was assumed that some of these sex differences could be attributed to demand characteristics in relation to specific topics discussed by group members in earlier investigations. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relative importance of two such demand characteristics, decision rule (consensus rule vs. majority rule), and decision consequence (high vs. low consequences), in addition to the sex composition of the group membership. Adherence to the group decision was also studied. On a topic previously rated as important, 16 four-person groups of males and the same number of female groups met and deliberated on a decision regarding an academic policy. Later these undergraduate students indicated their preference on the decision topic. The results showed male—female differences not accounted for by decision rule, decision consequence, or group decision post-test change. Explanation of the sex differences was offered in terms of varying academic aspiration levels and incongruency with attained academic achievement. The results also lend partial support for the importance of some operating demand characteristics, as yet unidentified.     

Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries

Two experiments examined the effects of majority and unanimity decision rules on group decisions involving continuous alternatives. Each experiment used mock civil juries to test three hypotheses related to the claim that when the distribution of group members’ initial preferences is skewed, the group’s decision will be influenced more by the presence of outlier members under unanimity rule than under majority rule. Experiment 1 tested the hypotheses using a punitive damages case and positively skewed preference distributions. Experiment 2 tested the hypotheses using a compensatory damages case and manipulating the skewness of preference distributions in a 2 (group decision rule) × 2 (valence of skewness) factorial design. In both experiments, the extreme (outlier) member’s individual preference was significantly correlated with the group decision only under unanimity rule. A simple thought experiment based on the experimental results is suggested regarding the implications of using unanimity or majority rule for making decisions in civil juries.     

Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups

In this paper, we examined how identification with urban districts as a common ingroup identity and perceived ingroup prototypicality influence the attitudes of residents toward other ethnic groups in their neighborhood. The overall conclusion of two field studies (N = 214 and N = 98) is that for majority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification with an overarching identity and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as low in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 1 and 2). Conversely, for minority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as high in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 2). Outgroup prototypicality did not moderate the relation between identification and outgroup attitudes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social change in the aftermath of successful minority influence

This chapter describes a programme of research on group dynamics in the aftermath of successful minority influence that reverses minority and majority positions within a group. Supporting the authors' gain - loss asymmetry model of change, converging evidence suggests that loss of the majority position generates strong disidentification from the superordinate group whereas gaining the majority position does not yield comparable identification. This overall decrease in identification is associated with a general increase in hostility, reduced helpfulness, and a desire to exit the group. Thus groups may be especially fragile following internal changes in the majority - minority positions. Additional research suggests that such a pattern of reactions to majority - minority change is a specifically group phenomenon (versus aggregates of individuals) and occurs when majority - minority reversals follow the attitude change of existing group members (versus an influx of new members). New majorities will increase their identification with the group when converts provide genuine support or when their new majority position persists over time. Implications of these findings for intra-group relations in the aftermath of social change are discussed.     

Individual postdecision processes in group settings

In two experiments Differentiation and Consolidation Theory (Diff Con) (Svenson, 1992) was used to investigate individual postdecision making processes in three-member groups. It was predicted that in groups in which the subjects preferred different alternatives (conflict groups), subjects would consolidate their own preferred alternative, and not the group's final decision. A second hypothesis was that no consolidation would be indicated in groups in which all members preferred the same alternative (non-conflict groups). The results showed that in conflict groups, the members who gave up their preferred alternative (minority members) consolidated their own preference, thereby significantly regretting the group decision. In contrast, members who got their own will through in the majority decision (majority members) showed no consolidation of the group decision. The corresponding pattern of results was replicated in a second experiment, using a different decision situation. The results indicated that perceptions of social support, agreement in a group and decreasing responsibility for a group's decision, could all partly substitute consolidation by attractiveness restructuring.     

Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation

Research on time pressure (TP) in negotiation has considered strategic choice (demands and concession making) but largely ignored information processing. Based on Lay Epistemic Theory ([Kruglanski, 1989]) it is hypothesized that TP reduces motivation to process information systematically, and the time needed to negotiate an agreement, and that it produces greater reliance on cognitive heuristics when placing demands, and less integrative agreements. Two studies revealed that effects of time constraint on information processing in negotiation were due to higher need for cognitive closure under high TP. Study 1 also showed that negotiators use stereotypes about the opponent as a heuristic cue more under high rather than low TP. Study 2 revealed that negotiators under high TP were less likely to revise their unfounded fixed-pie perceptions during negotiation and, therefore, reached less integrative agreements. Implications for motivated information processing in negotiation are discussed.     

Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement

The authors tested a motivated information-processing model of negotiation: To reach high joint outcomes, negotiators need a deep understanding of the task, which requires them to exchange information and to process new information systematically. All this depends on social motivation, epistemic motivation (EM), and their interaction. Indeed, when EM (manipulated by holding negotiators process accountability or not) was high rather than low and prosocial rather than proself, negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive tactics (Experiment 1), had more trust, and reached higher joint outcomes (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that under high EM, negotiators who received cooperative, rather than competitive, tactics reached higher joint outcomes because they engaged in more problem solving. Under low EM, negotiators made more concessions and reached low joint outcomes. Implications for negotiation theory and for future work in this area are discussed.     

Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes

This study contributes to the new and growing body of research on shared cognition by examining how individuals entering a group decision-making context with different perspectives of the issues to be discussed arrive at cognitive consensus. Cognitive consensus refers to similarity among group members regarding how key matters are conceptualized and was operationalized as shared assumptions underlying decision issues in the present research. Utilizing 37 student groups participating in a multi-issue decision-making exercise, the study investigated antecedents and correlates of cognitive consensus. Results revealed that unanimity decision rule groups achieved more cognitive consensus than majority rule groups. In addition, group members inquiring concerning the reasons underlying others' decision preferences, accepting others' viewpoints as legitimate, and incorporating others' perspectives into their own interpretations of the issues was positively related to arriving at a greater degree of cognitive consensus. Cognitive consensus also positively influenced expectations regarding decision implementation and satisfaction.     

Group status drives majority and minority integration preferences

This research examined preferences for national- and campus-level assimilative and pluralistic policies among Black and White students under different contexts, as majority- and minority-group members. We targeted attitudes at two universities, one where 85% of the student body is White, and another where 76% of students are Black. The results revealed that when a group constituted the majority, its members generally preferred assimilationist policies, and when a group constituted the minority, its members generally preferred pluralistic policies. The results support a functional perspective: Both majority and minority groups seek to protect and enhance their collective identities.