Reference paper:
Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. . (2010). Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(2), 173.Conclusion:
(A 50-word quick summary from my understanding)
Interest groups' voice (no-voice, unequal voice and equal voice procedures) in political decision making affects decision acceptance by people and inferred trustworthiness mediates this relationship. Further, individual's knowledge levels moderates the desire for an opportunity for members of general public to voice, inferred trustworthiness and decision acceptance. Quick Notes/queries:
(For my further delving)
- How does trustworthiness of interest groups, who are provided group voice, affect decision acceptance by the public? What if none or most of the interest groups involved are perceived to be not trustworthy by the general public?
- How does perceived knowledge levels of interest groups, who are provided group voice, affect public's decision acceptance?
- How do the composition and identities of interest groups, who are provided group voice, affect perceptions of procedural fairness?
- How does perceived procedural fairness of decision-making by interest groups, who are provided group voice, affect the trustworthiness and decision acceptance by the general public?
- What would be the influence of the procedural elements on outcomes other than decision acceptance (such as attitudes)?
- How does initial attitude of people influence decision acceptance?
- Consider two hypothetical decision making scenarios in the US - one that involves providing military support to a foreign country, and second that involves whether health insurance policies should be made mandatory for all citizens. Assuming all else is same (such as trustworthiness, group voice, knowledge levels) it could be assumed that the general public perceives a differential degree of implications of decision on themselves in the two cases. In such as scenario, would not the decision acceptance be different? In general, how would the perceived degree of implications of decision moderate the desire for an opportunity for members of general public to voice and decision acceptance?
- How do people's own preferred outcomes influence authority evaluations and decision acceptance?
- How do prior decision acceptance/nonacceptance influence current decision acceptance?
- Consider a case where the general public has a strong perception that the decision maker is untrustworthy. In the current decision making process, even if a fair voice procedure is allowed in the decision making, how would the perceived trustworthiness and thereby decision acceptance be affected. In other words, how would prior perceived trustworthiness of the decision maker influence the decision acceptance?
(Unrelated questions to, but inferred from, the paper)
- Does inferred trustworthiness of a supervisor influence subordinate voice behaviors? Conversely, does voice denial by supervisor affect his/her inferred trustworthiness?
- How does inferred trustworthiness of supervisor influence an employee's fairness assessment of voice denial of his/her peer by the supervisor?
- Consider a case where an employee believes that it is less safe and/or less effective to voice his message to the supervisor, but believes that when the same message is voiced by his peer it would be safer and/or more effective. Now consider another case where employee believes that irrespective of whether he or his peer voices the same message, the safety and efficacy of the voice remains the same. Do individual and group outcomes vary in these two cases? In general, how does perceived unequal voice safety and efficacy within a group impact individual and group outcomes? How does this compare with perceived uniformity of costs and futility across individuals in the group?
- Does a group voice denial episode influence employee's future voice behaviors? In particular, how does employee voice behavior get influenced when the employee in the group does not necessarily agree with group voice, or when the possible group outcome is not the outcome preferred by the employee, or when the employee lacks motivation to contribute to group voice?
- How does denial of voice to a fellow employee in a group influence voice of the observer employee? Is it different when the observer is a witness to the denial process than when s/he only hears about the episode? How do observer's motivations or lack of knowledge to assess the fairness of voice denial moderate this influence? How does trustworthiness of fellow employee, or in general observer-employee relationship, influence the perceived fairness and also observer's future voice behavior? Similarly, how does group voice denial impact behaviors of other observer groups?