Cooling the Marks, Part 2

If you have not read “Cooling the Marks, Part 1,” please do so before reading this post.

Social psychologists emphasize that there are two types of social justice norms. Distributive justice norms deal with the fair allocation of social rewards and costs. Procedural justice norms deal with the fairness of the processes by which social outcomes are allocated. For example, in a jury trial, distributive justice refers to whether the verdict was correct, and in the case of a guilty verdict, whether the sentence was appropriate. Procedural justice refers to factors such as whether the defendant was represented by a competent attorney, and had an opportunity to present his or her case to a judge and jury who were attentive and unbiased. In general, the ruling class hopes that even when citizens receive a disliked outcome, they will accept it if they think it was arrived at by a fair procedure, such as “representative democracy.”

Studies of people who interact with social institutions—the police, the government, their school, their employer—have identified several factors that determine whether procedures are perceived as fair. One of them is voice. Voice refers to the opportunity to express your views along with the perception that your audience is willing to listen and at least consider your arguments. Laboratory studies show that providing research participants with the opportunity to present their case increases their satisfaction with decisions, even when those decisions are not in their favor. Surveys suggest that voice also increases satisfaction in real world situations. It leads to more favorable evaluations of authorities and institutions, and to system-supportive behaviors such as working hard and obeying the law.

Tom Tyler and Allen Lind did a series of studies in which laboratory participants are either given or not given an opportunity to provide input into a decision that affected their later outcomes. Subsequently, they receive word that the decision went in their favor or against them. They are then asked questions to determine how satisfied they are with the decision process. Naturally, they are more satisfied when the decision is made in their favor. But they are also more satisfied when they have had the opportunity to present their views. Most importantly, the increased satisfaction that comes as a result of voice in greater when the outcome is unfavorable than when it is favorable.

Why do people place a high value on voice? One possibility is that people hold out the hope that they will be able to persuade authorities to accept their position. However, in an important experiment by Lind, Kanfer and Earley, participants were allowed to voice their opinion on the number of tasks they would be assigned. In one condition, the decision maker had not yet made up his mind. In another, the decision had already been made prior to their opportunity to speak, and was irrevocable. These two conditions were compared to a third in which participants were not allowed to provide any input. The results showed that participants were more satisfied with the decision when they had voice than when they did not, but they were only slightly less satisfied when the decision maker had already decided than when he had not yet made up his mind. In other words, even people who are explicitly told that their testimony will have no impact on the decision still perceive the situation as fairer if they get to speak.

These studies suggest that voice can be used to create a type of false consciousness—in this case, the belief that the political system is fairer than it actually is. How often have you heard this scenario? The legislature is about to make some important decision affecting all of our lives. Before they decide, they will hold a series of public hearings. People with an interest in the proposed legislation are invited to present their views. But what is the purpose of the hearing if, as we suspect, the authorities have already made up their minds and are merely going through the motions of soliciting public input? Clearly they hope to increase satisfaction with the decision, particularly among people who will be disappointed. They are trying to cool the mark out. The bad news is that this works, and it works even when we know that authorities are not going to be influenced. We are happier with decisions that are contrary to our interests if authorities merely pretend to listen to our views.

It is axiomatic that people should not willingly participate in activites which increase their own oppression. Therefore, social justice advocates may want to think seriously about whether they should participate in public hearings. Although you may not realize it, authorities are cooling you out—making you more satisfied with them and less dissatisfied with your situation than you otherwise would be. Of course, it may not feel that way, because you don't have access to a crucial control condition—what your attitudes would be if everything else were equal but you had not participated in the hearing.

Why do people continue to participate in public hearings? First of all, they can't be absolutely sure that authorities will disregard their testimony—although if they are sentient, they should be starting to get the hint by now. Another reason is that a small percentage of the time the decision will actually go in their favor, and they may mistakenly attribute this to their own political influence. This may happen, for example, if Governor Corbett's campaign contributors actually insist that he locate some funding for mass transit in Pittsburgh. When this happens, it illustrates the power of intermittent reinforcement. A success rate of as low as 1% may be sufficient to keep activists showing up. This is the same psychological principle that keeps some people throwing away their money in slot machines.

Public hearings comfortably reinforce the world view of authorities. They get to look down from above on ordinary citizens, who come to them crying and pleading for help. They get to say “maybe,” which subsequently becomes “no,” because, after all, they possess great wisdom and know even better than the common people what is in the common people's interest.

If we don't participate in public hearings, what should we do instead? That's a topic for another post, but I would suggest that people who have been marks for decades should think about taking actions which move authorities outside of their comfort zones.