Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

Esaiasson, Peter; Persson, Mikael; Gilljam, Mikael; Lindholm, Torun

doi:10.1017/s0007123416000508

Cited by 136 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2. The only other study we have identified that tests the importance of procedures and outcomes for citizens' decision acceptance in a population-based survey stems from Esaiasson et al (2016a). Yet, their survey experiment is limited to the context of metropolitan Gothenburg.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous experimental studies on similar topics focus on how various modes of decision making in small-scale settings affect individual assessments of procedural fairness (Tyler 1994;Esaiasson et al 2016b), or decision acceptability (Esaiasson et al 2016a;Arnesen 2017). Previous experimental studies on similar topics focus on how various modes of decision making in small-scale settings affect individual assessments of procedural fairness (Tyler 1994;Esaiasson et al 2016b), or decision acceptability (Esaiasson et al 2016a;Arnesen 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another specificity of our study is its scope. Previous experimental studies on similar topics focus on how various modes of decision making in small-scale settings affect individual assessments of procedural fairness (Tyler 1994;Esaiasson et al 2016b), or decision acceptability (Esaiasson et al 2016a;Arnesen 2017). Given this narrow focus on decision making, it is unclear to what extent the findings from these studies are valid for the larger scale of political systems more generally.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While political scientists have a certain inclination to endorse the argument that system performance is the more important driver of legitimacy beliefs than democratic procedures (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse 2002;Esaiasson et al 2016a;Arnesen 2017) -especially when it comes to specific support for political institutions and actors (cf. Easton 1965) -there is also evidence showing that opportunities for participation and active involvement in decision making as such are highly valued by citizens (Tyler 2000;Bengtsson & Mattila 2009;Esaiasson et al 2012).…”

Section: Output Throughput and Input: The Basis For Citizens' Legitimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population‐based survey experiment in four West European countries

Strebel

Kübler

Marcinkowski

2018

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of subjective democratic legitimacy from a citizens’ perspective has become an important strand of research in political science. Echoing the well‐known distinction between ‘input‐oriented’ and ‘output‐oriented’ legitimacy, the scientific debate on this topic has coined two opposed views. Some scholars find that citizens have a strong and intrinsic preference for meaningful participation in collective decision making. But others argue, to the contrary, that citizens prefer ‘stealth democracy’ because they care mainly about the substance of decisions, but much less about the procedures leading to them. In this article, citizens’ preferences regarding democratic governance are explored, focusing on their evaluations of a public policy according to criteria related to various legitimacy dimensions, as well as on the (tense) relationship among them. Data from a population‐based conjoint experiment conducted in eight metropolitan areas in France, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom is used. By analysing 5,000 respondents’ preferences for different governance arrangements, which were randomly varied with respect to their input, throughput and output quality as well as their scope of authority, light is shed on the relative importance of different aspects of democratic governance. It is found, first, that output evaluations are the most important driver for citizens’ choice of a governance arrangement; second, consistent positive effects of criteria of input and throughput legitimacy that operate largely independent of output evaluations can be discerned; and third, democratic input, but not democratic throughput, is considered somewhat more important when a governance body holds a high level of formal authority. These findings run counter to a central tenet of the ‘stealth democracy’ argument. While they indeed suggest that political actors and institutions can gain legitimacy primarily through the provision of ‘good output’, citizens’ demand for input and throughput do not seem to be conditioned by the quality of output as advocates of stealth democratic theory suggest. Democratic input and throughput remain important secondary features of democratic governance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Output Throughput and Input: The Basis For Citizens' Legitimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population‐based survey experiment in four West European countries

Strebel

Kübler

Marcinkowski

2018

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 For recent reviews of the vast procedural fairness literature, see MacCoun (2005) or Murphy (2017), for example. 4 See however, Esaiasson, Persson, Gilljam, and Lindholm (2016). 5 See also Gilley (2006), showing that "general governance" (capturing government effectiveness, control of corruption, and rule of law) emerges as the strongest correlate of state legitimacy.…”

Section: Outcomes Fairness and Political Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities

Magalhães

Aguiar‐Conraria²

2018

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A vast literature in social and organizational psychology suggests that support for authorities is driven both by the outcomes they deliver to people and by the extent to which they employ fair decision making processes. Furthermore, some of that literature describes a process‐outcome interaction, through which the effect of outcome favorability is reduced as process fairness increases. However, very few studies have been conducted to determine whether such interaction is also present in the explanation of support for political authorities. Here, we start by analyzing whether individual perceptions of the political system’s procedural fairness moderate the well‐known individual‐level relationship between perceived economic performance and government approval. Then, we explore the implications of such process‐outcome interaction to the phenomenon of “economic voting,” testing whether impartiality in governance moderates the effect of objective economic performance on aggregate incumbent parties’ support. In both cases, we show that the interaction between processes and outcomes seems to extend beyond the organizational contexts where it has been previously observed, with important implications for the study of political support.

show abstract

Modulation of the leniency bias in the discursive dilemma

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We experimentally approach the discursive dilemma to gain insight into people's procedural appropriateness judgments. We relied on a vignette in which three people had formed opinions about two skills (premises) of a candidate to decide whether to hire her/him (conclusion). The dilemma arises when different outcomes (hire vs. not hire) are achieved depending on whether the majority opinion is independently considered for each premise or for the global conclusion of each judge. Participants were asked to choose the procedure they thought to be more appropriate to reach a decision. In Experiment 1, we found a leniency effect (a bias to prefer the aggregation procedure that led to hiring the candidate), which was reduced by introducing the participant as a juror with an exogenously provided negative opinion about the candidate's skills. In Experiment 2, we replicated the opinion effect, even when subjects did not participate as jury members. In Experiment 3, we found that the leniency bias was only reduced when participants' negative opinion was aligned with a majority of negative premises, but not with a majority of negative conclusions. We discuss present findings in terms of the identification of empirical regularities that may affect people's procedural legitimacy judgments.

show abstract

Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

Cited by 136 publications

References 62 publications

The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population‐based survey experiment in four West European countries

The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population‐based survey experiment in four West European countries

Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities

Modulation of the leniency bias in the discursive dilemma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About