Evaluating noise in social context: The effect of procedural unfairness on noise annoyance judgments

Abstract

General dosage-response curves typically over- or underestimate the actual prevalence of noise annoyance for specific groups of individuals. The present study applies a social psychological approach to noise annoyance that helps to understand and predict collective deflections from the curve. The approach holds that being exposed to man-made sound is more than mere exposure; it is a social experience, too: You expose Me. In effect, social aspects of the situation, like the evaluation of the sound management procedure, influence the evaluation of sound. The laboratory experiment (N=90) investigates the effect of procedural unfairness on noise annoyance. The sound management procedure is varied systematically: Participants are promised they will listen to the sound of their choice (i.e., bird song, radio sound, or aircraft sound) but receive aircraft sound despite their expressed preference (unfair procedure), or they are simply told they will listen to aircraft sound (neutral procedure). All are exposed to aircraft sound (50 or 70 dBA Leq). A collective rise in noise annoyance is predicted in the unfair relative to the neutral procedure conditions. Results show that noise annoyance ratings are significantly higher in the unfair relative to the neutral conditions. Consequences for theory and practice are discussed.

Determining the direction of causality between psychological factors and aircraft noise annoyance

“…For example, Glaser and Singer [8] have shown via several experiments that an individual's level of perceived control over the degree of noise exposure influences a person's noise reaction. In similar fashion, Maris et al [9,10] have shown that the fairness of the procedures preceding the actual exposure to noise influences the degree of reported noise annoyance. Although these studies can firmly establish causality for the sample under investigation, the results cannot easily be generalized towards a population living around an airport.…”

Railway noise annoyance: Exposure-response relationships and testing a theoretical model by structural equation analysis

“…In laboratory studies, it has already been shown that noise annoyance can be diminished through fair procedures [13] and increases by unfair procedures. [14] Furthermore, trust in authorities is related to the expectation how noise will develop in the future, and the belief that noise could be prevented. [6,11] Positive social evaluations of the noise source, for example, the belief of its importance, are deemed to attenuate annoyance.…”

The Effects of Social Exclusion and Group Heterogeneity on the Provision of Public Goods

“…There are two potential channels through which one might imagine this deliberate removal of individual agency might negatively affect future co-operation. One channel relates to the psychological and emotional response to being deliberately excluded from a choice process, triggering a response to perceived procedural unfairness 2 [3][4][5][6][7]. The second channel relates to the response to the material inequality that is produced through the process of deliberate exclusion, triggering inequality aversion [8][9][10].…”

“…However, there is mixed evidence on this effect with some finding no effects [43,45], others showing positive effects [38,42], as still others finding lower levels of cooperation [40,44,49] 6 .…”

“…5 Much of the experimental literature on pro-sociality, particularly in public goods games, is characterised by windfall (unearned endowments given to the players by the experimenter) and homogeneous endowments [46][47][48]. 6 The design of experiments in this field vary substantially in several features. In some cases, the endowments allocated to participants at the onset of the game are varied [43,44], the value of the public good to different individuals (the marginal per capita returns) is altered [38,42,49] or different show up fees for participation are awarded [40].…”