Of Practicalities and Perspective: What Is Fair in Group Decision Making?

Abstract

Establishing fair procedures to regulate intragroup disagreements should engender cooperation while inhibiting conflict. Yet what is a "fair" procedure might vary for members of different factions. To understand perceptions of fairness in group decision making, the present research developed and utilized the Fair Group Procedures Scale (FGPS). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed a four-factor structure along two dimensions: the means of distributing decision-making power (proportionality to equality) and the normative value of the approach (desirable to undesirable). Data suggest that deeming a particular decision-making procedure "fair" is predicted by one's majority/minority position within a group. Furthermore, experimental data suggest that social change (i.e., reversals of majority/minority positions) reduces the discrepancies between factions. Results support the socially constructed nature of fairness and its potential role in intragroup conflict. "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas JeffersonIn 2005, the two political parties within the United States Senate engaged in rancorous debate over what constitutes a "fair" procedure for evaluating judicial

Cooperation and Conflict within Groups: Bridging Intragroup and Intergroup Processes

“…Sidanius and Pratto (1999) argue that all human societies are hierarchically organized; not only are individuals organized hierarchically by status (see Shelly & Shelly, 2009), but also subgroups within a group are differentiated by status (see Levin et al, 2009). Consequently, these subgroups develop different perspectives on group processes, with different views on what represents basic principles such as fairness (see Jacobs et al, 2009). Thus, as Chizhik et al (2009) suggested in the initial article in this volume, intragroup processes and intergroup relations are intimately intertwined.…”

“…In general, the same motivations for power and resources that underlie advantaged group members' motivation to maintain the status quo also form the basis of a disadvantaged group members' desire for social change (see also Jacobs, Christensen, & Prislin, this volume) . Blumer (1958) posited that people have a basic motivation to maintain or gain a relatively advantaged position for their group.…”

“…The article by Jacobs et al (this volume) in this volume nicely illustrates the difference between the perspectives of advantaged and disadvantaged subgroup members in their development and application of the Fair Group Procedures Scale. Furthermore, it points to the underlying motivations responsible for this difference.…”

“…As predicted, majority (advantaged) and minority (disadvantaged) group members had systematically different preferences for the strategies: “members of ethnic minorities preferred the group equality strategy more than members of the ethnic majority. Furthermore, there was a trend for ethnic majority members to prefer the majority rule strategy more than ethnic minority members” (Jacobs et al, 2009, p. 392). In addition, a manipulation of status stability revealed the functionality of these preferences.…”

Intragroup Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction

“…While the decision‐making processes within groups is important to investigate, it is also important to investigate group members’ perceptions of the decision‐making process. To this end, Jacobs, Christensen, and Prislin (2009) have examined how minority and majority factions within groups perceive the fairness of the decision‐making process. By presenting findings that point to the contextual nature of perceptions as to what is fair, the authors indicate that such perceptions can work to organize intragroup interactions through an affective filter that can modulate the perceived level of conflict and cooperation.…”