Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions.

Abstract

The implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS) is considered an important climate change mitigation strategy, but the viability of this technology will depend on public acceptance of CCS policy decisions. The results of three experiments with students as participants show that whether or not interest groups receive an opportunity to express their opinions in the decision-making process (i.e., group voice) affects acceptance of CCS policy decisions, with inferred trustworthiness of the decision maker mediating this effect. Decision-making procedures providing different interest groups with equal opportunities to voice their opinions instigate more trust in the decision maker and, in turn, lead to greater willingness to accept decisions compared to no-voice procedures (i.e., unilateral decision-making-Study 1) and unequal group-voice procedures (i.e., when one type of interest group receives voice, but another type of interest group does not-Study 2). Study 3 further shows that an individual's own level of knowledge about CCS moderates the desire for an opportunity for members of the general public to voice opinions in the decision-making process, inferred trustworthiness of decision makers, and policy acceptance. These results imply that people care about voice in decision-making even when they are not directly personally involved in the decision-making process. We conclude that people tend to use procedural information when deciding to accept or oppose policy decisions on political complex issues; hence, it is important that policymakers use fair group-voice procedures and that they communicate to the public how they arrive at their decisions.

It's not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht

“…In their study, people not only expressed safety concerns, but also frequently mentioned procedural fairness and issues of trust as being among the main concerns when it comes to siting a project. Moreover, our findings are consistent with experimental research that shows that the public is more trusting (and more willing to accept decisions) of political authorities that use fair rather than unfair procedures to arrive at their CCS policy decisions (Terwel et al, 2010).…”

Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: a comparative study of Australia, China and Chile

“…Further, a number of studies have found a direct correlation between individuals' perceptions of procedural fairness and an increase in their acceptance of a particular decision outcome or activity e even in cases where they may not directly benefit from the outcomes of the decision, or even where they receive very unfavourable outcomes. This has been demonstrated, for instance, in regard to socially controversial activities such as the acceptance of genetically modified crops , the location of nuclear power plants (Besley, 2010), and the implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology (Terwel et al, 2010).…”

Public Participation and Institutional Fit: A Social–Psychological Perspective

“…1). In fact, research indicates that institutional acceptance promotes organizational trust, willingness to pool information, decreased absenteeism, and cooperative behavior (Greenberg 1990, DeCremer and Tyler 2005, Terwel et al 2010. Each of these positive effects could help smooth institutional processes and facilitate positive institutional outcomes.…”